The Role of the Church

The Functions of the ChurchEvangelismEdificationWorshipSocial Concern

The Heart of the Ministry of the Church: The Gospel

The Character of the ChurchWillingness to ServeAdaptability

We have voiced criticism of the position that the church is tobe defined in terms of its functions, that is, that its form is to follow fromits functions. Nonetheless, the functions of the church are very importanttopics, for the church was not brought into being by our Lord simply toexist as an end in itself. Rather, it was brought into being to fulhl theLords intention for it. It is to carry on the Lords ministry in the world-to perpetuate what he did and to do what he would do were he still here.Our first consideration in this chapter will be the various functions whichthe church is charged with carrying out.1 Then we will look at what is at

1. J. C. Hoekendijk, The Church Inside Out (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966), part 1.

1051

1052 The Church The Role of the Church

the heart of the ministry of the church and gives form to all that thechurch does, namely, the gospel. Finally, we will look at two qualitieswhich it is particularly important for the church to display at the presenttime-willingness to serve and adaptability.

The Functions of the Church

Evangelism

The one topic emphasized in both accounts of Jesus’ last words to hisdisciples is evangelism. In Matthew 28119 he instructs them, “Go thereforeand make disciples of all nations.” In Acts 1:8 he says, “But you shallreceive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shallbe my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to theend of the earth.” This was the final point Jesus made to his disciples. Itappears that he regarded evangelism as the very reason for their being.

The call to evangelize is a command. Having accepted Jesus as Lord,the disciples had brought themselves under his rule and were obligatedto do whatever he asked. For he had said, “If you love me, you will keepmy commandments” (John 14: 15); “He who has my commandments andkeeps them, he it is who loves me” (v. 21a); and ‘You are my friends ifyou do what I command you” (John 1514). If the disciples truly lovedtheir Lord, they would carry out his call to evangelize. It was not anoptional matter for them.

The disciples were not sent out merely in their own strength, however.Jesus prefaced his commission with the statement, “KU authority inheaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matt. 28:18). Having allauthority, he commissioned the disciples as his agents. Thus they had theright to go and evangelize all nations. Further, Jesus promised his disci-ples that the Holy Spirit would come upon them and that they wouldconsequently receive power. So they were both authorized and enabledfor the task. Moreover, they were assured that he was not sending themoff on their own. Although he was to be taken from them bodily, hewould nonetheless be with them spiritually to the very end of the age(Matt. 28:20).

Note also the extent of the commission: it is all-inclusive. In Matthew28:19 Jesus speaks of “all nations,” and in Acts 1:8 he gives a specificenumeration: “You shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judeaand Samaria and to the end of the earth.” Differing issues are involvedat the various levels of this command:*

2. Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970),vol. 1) pp. I 17B.

1053

Jerusalem was, of course, the immediate vicinity. While it was not thehome territory of the inner circle of disciples (they were Galileans), it wasthe site of Pentecost. Since the first converts would have many closecontacts in Jerusalem, it was natural for the church to witness and growthere. Jerusalem was also the most difficult place to witness, however, forit was there that the scandal in connection with the events of Christ’s lastdays, and especially his humiliating death by crucifixion, had occurred.There would be a natural distrust of and perhaps even revulsion againstany presentation of the message of the Savior. On the other hand, oneadvantage of witnessing in Jerusalem was that the people lived closeenough to each other to unite into one congregation if they chose todo so.

Beyond Jerusalem, the disciples were to be witnesses in “all Judea.”This area was basically homogeneous in its thinking and customs, for itsinhabitants were Jews, and Judean Jews at that. Yet most of them weretoo far removed from the center in Jerusalem to gather there. Conse-quently, fulhlrnent of this part of the commission would result in theestablishment of additional congregations.

Perhaps the most distasteful part of the commission, at least as far asthe disciples were concerned, was the third part-“in Samaria.” This tookthem to the people whom they found most d&cult to love, and whowould probably be least receptive to their message in that it would bebrought by Jews. The Jews and the Samaritans had been engaged inconflict for a long time. The friction dated back to the time of the Jews’return from the Babylonian captivity. Samaritans were half-breed Jewswho represented the intermarriage of the Israelites left behind by theAssyrians and various foreign colonists whom the Assyrians then sent into help repopulate the area. When the Jews returned from Babylon andbegan to rebuild the temple, the Samaritans offered to help, but theiroffer was spurned. From that time on, there was friction between thetwo groups. This is evident in the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ ministry.When Jesus asked a Samaritan woman for a drink of water, she re-sponded, “How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman ofSamaria?” John comments, “For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans”(John 4:9). This was an unusual encounter, for Jesus and his disciples didnot ordinarily pass through Samaria, preferring rather to cross over theJordan River and travel through Perea in their journeys between Galileein the north and Judea in the south. Jesus lent additional force to hisparable about loving one’s neighbor by making the hero of it a Samaritan(Luke 10:29-37). The Jews meant to insult Jesus when they asked, “Arewe not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?”(John 8:48). It is likely that the former taunt (to which Jesus did not reply)was intended to be the more humiliating of the two. Surely the Samari-

1054 The Church

tans were the people whom the Jews would have least liked to seeincluded in the church with them, yet Jesus said, “You shall be mywitnesses in. . . Samaria.”

Finally, the disciples were to bear witness “to the end of the earth.”There was no geographical restriction upon the commission. They wereto take the gospel message everywhere, to all nations and every type ofpeople. They could not, of course, accomplish this on their own. Rather,as they won converts, those converts would in turn evangelize yet others.Thus the message would spread in ever widening circles, and the taskwould eventually be completed.

Therefore, if the church is to be faithful to its Lord and bring joy to hisheart, it must be engaged in bringing the gospel to all people. Thisinvolves going to people whom we like and people whom we may bynature tend to dislike. It extends to those who are unlike us. And it goesbeyond our immediate sphere of contact and influence. In a very realsense, local evangelism, church extension or church planting, and worldmissions are all the same thing. The only difference lies in the length ofthe radius. The church must work in all of these areas. If it does not, itwill become spiritually ill, for it will be attempting to function in a way itsLord never intended.

The second major function of the church is the edification of believers.Although Jesus laid greater emphasis upon evangelism, the edification ofbelievers is logically prior. Paul repeatedly spoke of the edification of thebody. In Ephesians 4: 12, for example, he indicates that God has givenvarious gifts to the church “for the equipment of the saints, for the workof ministry, for building up the body of Christ.” Believers are to grow upinto Christ, “from whom the whole body, joined and knit together byevery joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly,makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love” (v. 16). The potential foredification is the criterion by which all activities, including our speech,are to be measured: “Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but onlysuch as is good for edifving, as fits the occasion, that it may impart graceto those who hear” (v. 29).

Moreover, in Paul’s discussion of certain controversial spiritual gifts,he brings tip the matter of edification. He says, for example, in1 Corinthians 14:4-S: “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but hewho prophesies edifies the church. Now I want you all to speak intongues, but even more to prophesy. He who prophesies is greater thanhe who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the churchmay be edified.” The importance of edifying others as one exercises

The Role of the Church 1 0 5 5

controversial gifts is mentioned again, in varying ways, in verses 12, 17,and 26. The last of these references sums up the matter: “Let all thingsbe done for edification.” Note that edification is mutual upbuilding by allthe members of the body. It is not merely the minister or pastor who isto build up the other members.

There are several means by which members of the church are to beedified. One of them is fellowship.3 The New Testament speaks ofKOtvWvh, literally, a having or holding all things in common. And indeed,according to Acts 5, the members of the early church held even all theirmaterial possessions in common. Paul speaks of sharing one another’sexperiences: “If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one memberis honored, all rejoice together” (1 Cor. 12:26). While hurt is reduced, joyis increased by being shared. We are to encourage and sympathize witheach other. Believers are to bear one another’s burdens (Gal. 6:2). Onoccasion this may entail correction and rebuke, which should be admin-istered lovingly. Jesus laid down a pattern for discipline in Matthew18: 1.5-l 7. In severe cases, there may even be a need for excommunicationfrom the group, as in the case of the immoral man mentioned in 1 Cor-inthians 51-2. The primary aim of such disciplinary action is not torid the group of the erring member, however, but to restore such aperson to righteous living and thus to fellowship with believers.

The church also edifies its members through instruction or teaching.4This is part of the broad task of discipling. One of Jesus’ commands inthe Great Commission was to teach converts “to observe all that I havecommanded you” (Matt. 28:20). To this end, one of God’s gifts to thechurches is “pastors and teachers” (Eph. 411) to prepare and equip thepeople of God for service. The instruction need not always be given bythe official pastor-teacher of a congregation, however, nor need it begiven within a large group. A beautiful picture of this truth is seen inActs 18. Apollos, a learned and eloquent Jew who had come to a knowl-edge of Jesus, was speaking powerfully in the synagogue of Ephesus.There Priscilla and Aquila heard him, whereupon they invited him totheir home and “expounded to him the way of God more accurately”(v. 26). He then continued his ministry with even greater effectiveness.

Education may take many forms and occur on many levels. It isincumbent upon the church to utilize all legitimate means and technolo-gies available today. First of all, there is Christian education in the localchurch, for example, through the Sunday school. Beyond that level thelocal church cooperates with other churches to carry on specific aspects

3. James E. Carter, The Mission of the Church (Nashville: Broadman, 1974), pp. 65-73.4. Edmund Clowney, “Toward a Biblical Doctrine of the Church,” Westminster Theo-

logical Journal 3 1, no. 1 (November 1968): 7 l-72.

IO56 The Church

of their instructional task. For example, theological seminaries and divin-ity schools equip pastor-teachers and others to instruct people in theWord. This is a fulhlment of Paul’s command to Timothy: “And what youhave heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men whowill be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2).

Since the church has the task of teaching the truth of God as revealedin the Holy Scriptures, by implication it has the obligation to grow in itsunderstanding of that revelation. Thus the task of biblical scholarship isincumbent upon the church. This task is carried out by specialists whopossess gifts in such matters. But the church must study not merelyGod’s special revelation, but also his general revelation and the relation-ships between the two. Christian liberal-arts colleges are one means bywhich the church can fulfil its responsibility to instruct. Christian day-schools and academies represent the same endeavor on a less advancedlevel. And mission schools, where basic literacy is taught, equip people toread the biblical message.

Preaching is another means of instruction that has been used by theChristian church from its very beginning.5 In 1 Corinthians 14, when Paulspeaks of prophesying, he probably is referring to preaching. He com-ments that prophesying is of greater value than is speaking in tongues,because it edifies or builds up the church: “He who prophesies speaks tomen for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. He whospeaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies thechurch” (w. 3-4).

To the end of mutual edification God has equipped the church withvarious gifts apportioned and bestowed by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:ll).As we noted earlier (p. 876) the New Testament contains four signifi-cantly different lists of these gifts. Whenever virtues like faith, service,and giving, which, on biblical grounds, are to be expected of all believers,are represented as special gifts of the Spirit, it appears that the writerhas in mind unusual or extraordinary dimensions or degrees of thosevirtues. The Holy Spirit in his wisdom has given just what is needed, sothat the body as a whole may be properly built up and equipped.

Worship

Another activity of the church is worship. Whereas edification focusesupon the believers and benefits them, worship concentrates upon theLord. The early church came together to worship on a regular schedule,a practice commanded and commended by the apostle Paul. His direc-

5. Karl Barth, The Word of God and the Word of Man, trans. Douglas Horton (NewYork: Harper and Row, 1956), pp. 97-135.

The Role of the Church 1057

tion to the Corinthians to set aside money on the first day of every week(1 Cor. 16:2) intimates that they regularly gathered for worship on thatday. The writer to the Hebrews exhorts his readers not to neglect theassembling of themselves together, as was the habit of some (Heb. 10~25).Although worship emphasizes God, it is also intended to benefit theworshipers. This we infer from Paul’s warning against prayers, songs, andthanksgivings which fail to edify because no one is present to interprettheir meaning to those who do not understand (1 Cor. 14: 15-17).

Worship, the praise and exaltation of God, was a common Old Testa-ment practice, as can be seen particularly in the Book of Psalms. And inthe pictures of heaven in the Book of Revelation and elsewhere, thepeople of God are represented as recognizing and declaring his greatness.It is appropriate that the church, which belongs to God, praise and glorifyhim. In this aspect of its activity, the church centers its attention uponwho and what God is, not upon itself. It aims at appropriately expressingwho and what he is, not at satisfying its own feelings.6

It is important at this point to note the locus of the various functionsof the church. In biblical times the church gathered for worship andinstruction. Then it went out to evangelize. In worship, the members ofthe church focus upon God; in instruction and fellowship, they focusupon themselves and fellow Christians; in evangelism, they turn theirattention to non-Christians. It is well for the church to keep some sepa-ration between these several activities. If this is not done, one or moremay be crowded out. As a result the church will suffer, since all of theseactivities, like the various elements in a well-balanced diet, are essentialto the spiritual health and well-being of the body. For example, worshipof God will suffer if the gathering of the body becomes oriented primarilyto the interaction among Christians, or if the service is aimed exclusivelyat evangelizing the unbelievers who happen to be present. This was notthe pattern of the church in the Book of Acts. Rather, believers gatheredto praise God and be edified; then they went forth to reach the lost in theworld without.

Social Concern

Cutting across the various functions of the church which we havethus far examined is its responsibility to perform acts of Christian loveand compassion for both believers and non-Christians. It is clear thatJesus cared about the problems of the needy and the suffering.7 He

6. Langdon Gilkey, How the Church Can Minister to the World Without Losing Itself(New York: Harper and Row, 1964), pp. 104-l 7.

7. Sherwood Wirt, The Sociul Conscience of the Evangelical (New York: Harper andRow, 1968), pp. 19-26.

1058 The Church The Role of the Church

healed the sick and even raised the dead on occasion. If the church is tocarry on his ministry, it will be engaged in some form of ministry to theneedy and the suffering. That Jesus has such an expectation of believersis evident in the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). Jesustold this parable to the lawyer who, understanding that one can inheriteternal life by loving God with one’s whole being and one’s neighbor asoneself, asked who his neighbor was. In answering the question, Jesusalso explained what it means to love one’s neighbor as oneself. The goodSamaritan, although he had nothing to do with the assault on the mangoing down to Jericho, took it upon himself to care for the victim’s needseven at personal cost, inconvenience, and possible danger to himself.Since love of neighbor is closely linked by the law to love of God andinvolves actions like those of the good Samaritan, the Christian churchmust be concerned about hurt and need in the world. Indeed, Jesussuggests in Matthew 2531-46 that the one sign by which true believerscan be distinguished from those who make empty professions is acts oflove which are done in Jesus’ name and emulate his example. Concernfor the fatherless, the widow, and the sojourner is appropriate for thosewho worship a God who himself displays such concern (Deut. 10: 17-l 9).

hurt, or wrong. There will be differences of opinion as to the strategiesand tactics that should be employed. In some cases, the church will worksimply to alleviate the hurt, that is, to treat the consequences of theproblem. In others, it will act to change the circumstances that haveproduced the problem. There will be times when the church actingcollectively will be able to accomplish more than will Christians actingindividually; in other situations the reverse will be true.8

The church has agreat deal to do by way of improving its record. Yetit occasionally fails to note just how much has already been accom-plished. What percentage of the colleges and hospitals in England andthe United States were founded in earlier years by Christian groups?Today many of the charitable and educational functions once carriedout by the church are instead managed by the state and supported bytaxes paid by both Christians and non-Christians. Consider also that thesocial needs in developed countries are not nearly as severe as they oncewere.

Emphasis on social concern carries over into the Epistles as well.James is particularly strong in stressing practical Christianity. Consider,for example, his definition of religion: “Religion that is pure and undefiledbefore God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in theiraffliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world” (James 1:27).He speaks out sharply against showing favoritism to the rich, an evilwhich occurred even within the church (2:1-l 1). He excoriates verbalencouragement unaccompanied by action: “Suppose a brother or sisteris without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, ‘Go, I wishyou well; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about his physicalneeds, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is notaccompanied by action, is dead” (2: 15-17, IYLV). John is equally pointed:“If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but hasno pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let usnot love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth” (1 John3:17-18, NIV). The half-brother of Jesus and the beloved disciple hadlearned well what Jesus had taught to be the meaning of “Love yourneighbor as yourself.”

Many of the churches which minimize the need for regeneration claimthat evangelicals have not participated sufficiently in the alleviation ofhuman needs? When, however, one shifts the frame of reference fromthe American domestic scene to the world, the picture is quite different.For evangelicals, concentrating their medical, agricultural, and educa-tional ministries in countries where the needs are most severe, haveoutstripped their counterparts in the mainline churches in worldwidemission endeavor. Indeed, on a per capita basis, evangelicals have donemore than have the liberal churches, and certainly much more than hasthe general popu.lace.lO

The Heart of the Ministry of the Church: The Gospel

It is important for us now to look closely at the one factor which givesbasic shape to everything the church does, the element which lies at theheart of all its functions, namely, the gospel, the good news. At thebeginning of his ministry Jesus announced that he had been anointed

Social concern includes the condemning of unrighteousness as well.Amos and several other Old Testament prophets spoke out emphaticallyagainst the evil and corruption of their day. John the Baptist likewisecondemned the sin of Herod, the ruler of his day, even though it costhim his liberty (Luke 3: 19-20) and eventually even his life (Mark 6:17-29).

The church is to show concern and take action wherever it sees need,

8. David 0. Moberg, Inasmuch Christian Social Responsibility in the TwentiethCentury (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), pp. 8 l-82.

9. Robert M. Price, “A Fundamentalist Social Gospel?” Christian Century 96, no. 39(28 November 1979): 1183-86. Note readers’ replies in vol. 97, no. 3 (23 January 1980): 78-79.

10. Harold Lindsell, “The Missionary Retreat,” Christianity Today, 9 November 1971,pp. 26-27 (188-89); William Hordern, New Directions in Theology Taiay, vol. 1, Introduc-tion (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966) pp. 75-76. See also Yearbook of AmericanChurches, ed. Herman C. Weber (New York: Round Table), 1933 ed., pp. 300-05; 1939 ed.,pp. 6-17; 1941 ed., pp. 129-38.

10.54,

1060 The Church

specifically to preach the gospel; later he charged the apostles to continuehis ministry by spreading the gospel. Without doubt, then, the gospel liesat the root of all that the church does.

Jesus entrusted to the believers the good news which had character-ized his own teaching and preaching from the very beginning. It issign&cant that, in the Book of Mark, the first recorded activity of Jesusafter his baptism and temptation is his preaching the gospel in Galilee:“Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching thegospel of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of Godis at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel”’ (Mark 1:14-15). Similarly,Luke records that Jesus inaugurated his ministry in Nazareth by readingfrom Isaiah 61:1-2 and applying the prophecy to himself: “The Spirit ofthe Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good newsto the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives andrecovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord” (Luke 418-19). And whenJohn the Baptist inquired whether Jesus was really the one who hadbeen prophesied, Jesus’ reply included as evidence the fact that “the poorhave good news preached to them” (Luke 7:22). Matthew characterizesthe ministry of Jesus as “teaching in their synagogues and preaching thegospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and every inErmity”(Matt. 935). Furthermore, Jesus linked fidelity to the gospel very closelywith commitment to him: “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who hasleft house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands,for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold nowin this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and childrenand lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life” (Mark1029-30). He also declared that the good news must be preached to allnations or throughout the world before the end (Matt. 2413; Mark 13:lO).

The key Old Testament word with reference to the gospel is the verb1.v~ (basar). It has the general sense of “proclaiming good news.” Anexample is found in 1 Kings 1:42, where Adonijah says to Jonathan theson of Abiathar the priest, “Come in, for you are a worthy man and bringgood news.” David uses the verb in 2 Samuel 410: “When one told me,‘Behold, Saul is dead,’ and thought he was bringing good news, I seizedhim and slew him at Z&lag, which was the reward I gave him for hisnews.” A messenger coming from battle is thought to be bearing goodtidings (2 Sam. 18:27). In Jeremiah 2015 the verb is used of the gladtidings of the birth of a son.

In some cases, the verb l@? is used of a message which is not favorable,as in 1 Samuel 4: 17, where a messenger announces the defeat of Israel,the loss of the ark, and the death of Eli’s sons, Hophni and Phinehas, acombination of bad news that resulted in Eli’s death-he fell backward

The Role of the Church 1061

from his seat and broke his neck. In 1 Kings 1:42 and Isaiah 52:7, as wellas 2 Samuel 18:27, the adjective zit3 (lav, “good”) is used in conjunctionwith 1~3. Consequently, some scholars have concluded that the verb byitself means simply “to deliver a message.” That is, it is thought to beneutral as to whether the news is good or bad. Gerhard Friedrich rejectsthis conclusion, appealing to evidence from other Semitic languages:

This is not so. In all Semitic languages, in Accadian, Ethiopic and Arabic,the sense of “joy” is contained in the stem. The realistic conception of the“word” in Semitic languages is shown by the fact that they have a specialstem for declaring something good, whereas Latin and modern languagesdo not, and Greek takes a middle course by constructing the compositeE~OL yyih~ov, &~+&u&xL. The addition 230 in the OT is simply a strength-ening of something already present in the stem.11

Similarly, the key New Testament words with reference to the gospel,&YY&[O~(YL and EL%XY$~LOV, by virtue of the element EL? invariablydenote good tidings. l2 In fact, Friedrich states categorically: “&YY&OYis a technical term for ‘news of victory.‘“13

It has been questioned whether Jesus used the term ~dayyih~ov (or,more correctly, its Aramaic equivalent) in speaking of himself. The scopeof this volume does not permit our considering all of the argumentswhich have been accumulated on the subject. It is sufficient to observethat Jesus thought of himself not only as declaring, but also as constitut-ing the good news:

The really decisive question is not whether Jesus himself used the wordeuangelion but whether it is a word appropriate to the substance of hismessage. There is no doubt that Jesus saw his message of the comingkingdom of God (Mk. 1:14) which is already present in his word andaction as good news.. . . Moreover, he appears not only as the messengerand author of the message, but at the same time as its subject, the one ofwhom the message tells. It is therefore quite consistent for the earlyChristian church to take up the term euangelion to describe the messageof salvation connected with the coming of Jesus.14

11. Gerhard Friedrich, tdayyAi[o~a~, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,ed. Gerhard Kittel and Geqhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 10 ~01s. (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1964-l 976), vol. 2, p. 707.

12. Ibid., pp. 710-12, 721-25.13. Ibid., p. 722.14. Ulrich Becker, “Gospel, Evangelize, Evangelist,” in The New International Dic-

tionary of New Testament Theolou, ed. CoLin Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976),vol. 2, p. 110.

1062 The Church The Role of the Church

Friedrich observes that whether Jesus used the word &~-yih~o~ ofhimself is “a question of His Messianic consciousness. If He realised thatHe was the Son of God who must die and rise again, then He alsorealised that He was Himself the content of the message.. . . What isgiven with His person constitutes the content of the Gospel.“15

exhortation in 2 Timothy 2:8: “Remember Jesus Christ, risen from thedead, descended from David, as preached in my gospel.”

Among New Testament writers it is Paul who makes the greatest useof the terms &yy&ov and ~bayy~h~o~a~. It is significant that on manyoccasions he uses the noun without any qualifier; that is, there is noadjective, phrase, or clause to define what he means by “the gospel”(Rom. 1:16; 10:16; 11:28; 1 Cor. 415; 914 [twice]; 9:23; 2 Cor. 8:18; Gal. 25,14; Phil. 15, 7, 12, 16, 27; 2:22; 43, 15; 1 Thess. 2:4; 2 Tim. 1:8; Philem. 13).Obviously, EZ~CX~@UOV had a meaning sufficiently standardized that Paul’sreaders knew precisely what he meant by “the gospel.” The word hastwo basic senses: active proclamation of the message and the contentproclaimed. Both senses occur in 1 Corinthians 9: 14: “those who proclaimthe gospel [the content] should get their living by the gospel [the act ofproclaiming it].”

It is apparent that when Paul uses &yyCA~ov as the direct object of averb of speaking or hearing, he has in view a particular content, aparticular body of facts. Among the verbs of speaking which are used inconjunction with &yyCA~ov are rziayyrAi(lo~a~ (1 Cor. 151; 2 Cor. 11:7;Gal. 1:l l), ~cr~ayyihho (1 Cor. 9:14), KT&~UUJ (Gal. 2:2; Col. 1:23; 1 Thess.2:9), Aahio (1 Thess. 2:2), yvwpi(;o (1 Car. 151; Eph. 6: 19) GuSdia~o (Gal.1:12), and &va~i~~~~ (Gal. 2:2). Verbs of hearing used with &yyCA~ovinclude &KOdw (Col. 1:23), ?7pOaKOh~ (Col. 1:5), 7~c~paAa@vo (1 Cor. 151;Gal. 1:12), and G~XO~UYL (2 Cor. 11:4).

To summarize: Paul viewed the gospel as centering upon Jesus Christand what God has done through him. The essential points of the gospelare Jesus Christ’s status as the Son of God, his genuine humanity, hisdeath for our sins, his burial, resurrection, subsequent appearances, andfuture coming in judgment. It may well be said that, in Paul’s view, JesusChrist is the gospel. In fact, the apostle uses the expression “the gospel ofChrist” on several occasions (Rom. 15: 19; 1 Cor. 9: 12; 2 Cor. 2: 12; 9: 13;10~14; Gal. 1:7; Phil. 1:27; 1 Thess. 3:2). Friedrich contends that we shouldnot attempt to determine whether the objective or subjective genitive isbeing used in these passages; Christ is to be understood as both theobject and the author of the message. l6 Paul sees the essential truths ofthis gospel message as fulfilments of Old Testament promises (Ram. l:l-4;16:25-26; 1 Cor. 15: l-4). Even the fact of coming judgment is good newsto the believer (Rom. 2:16), since Christ will be the agent of judgment.For the believer, the result of the judgment will be vindication, notcondemnation.

Taking note of what Paul opposes or refutes is another way of deter-mining some of the basic elements in the gospel. The occasion of hisletter to the Galatians was their turning away from what he hadpreached, and the one in whom they had believed, to a different kind ofgospel-which, in reality, was not a gospel at all (Gal. 1:6-9). Some of theGalatians had come to believe that righteousness, at least a degree of it,can be attained by works. The true gospel, on the other hand, arguesPaul, categorically maintains that one is justified by faith in the graciouswork of Jesus Christ in his death and resurrection.

The question arises, If Paul and his readers viewed the gospel asinvolving a certain content, what is that content? While Paul nowheregives us a complete and detailed statement of the tenets of the gospel,some passages are indicative of what it includes. In Remans 1:3-4 hespeaks of “the gospel concerning [God’s] Son, who was descended fromDavid according to the flesh and designated Son of God in power accord-ing to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, JesusChrist our Lord.” In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul reminds his readers in whatterms he had preached the gospel to them (v. 1): “For I delivered to youas of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sinsin accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raisedon the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appearedto Cephas . . . to the twelve . . . to more than five hundred brethren at onetime. . . to James . . . also to me” (w. 3-8). A briefer reference is Paul’s

In spite of all that has been said to this point, we must not think of thegospel as merely a recital of theological truths and historicaI events.Rather, it relates these truths and events to the situation of every individ-ual believer. Thus, Jesus died. But he died “for our sins” (1 Cor. 153). Noris the resurrection of Jesus an isolated event; it is the beginning of thegeneral resurrection of all believers (1 Cor. 1520 in conjunction withRom. 1:3-4). Furthermore, the fact of coming judgment pertains toeveryone. We wilI all be evaluated on the basis of our personal attitudetoward and response to the gospel: “vengeance [will be inflicted] uponthose who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospelof our Lord Jesus” (2 Thess. 1:8).

To Paul, the gospel is a&important. He declares to the church in Romethat the gospel “is the power of God for salvation to every one who hasfaith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek’ (Rom. 1:16). He reminds the

IS. Friedrich, tbayy&~opc~c, p. 728. 16. Ibid., p. 731.

1063

IOb4 The Church The Role of the Church

Corinthians: “By [the gospel] you are saved, if you hold it fast-unlessyou believed in vain”- (1 Cor. 1.52). He explains to the Ephesians: “In[Christ] you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of yoursalvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised HolySpirit” (Eph. 1: 13). It is the means by which life is obtained. He writes toTimothy that God “now has manifested [grace] through the appearing ofour Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and im-mortality to light through the gospel” (2 Tim. 1:lO). The gospel bringspeace and hope to those who believe. Accordingly, Paul speaks of “thegospel of peace” (Eph. 6:15) and “the hope of the gospel” (Col. 1:23).

Convinced that only the gospel can bring salvation along with all itsattendant blessings, Paul insists that the gospel is absolute and exclusive.Nothing is to be added to or taken from it, nor is there any alternateroute to salvation. We have already alluded to the case of certain Judaiz-ers who came to Galatia after Paul had preached there. Seeking toimprove upon the gospel, they insisted that Gentile converts submit tocircumcision, a rite which the Old Testament law had required of prose-lytes to Judaism. Paul was very vigorously opposed, since any relianceupon such works would constitute a partial loss of confidence in theefficacy of grace. He reminded the Galatians that those who rely uponthe law are required to fulfil all of its points and hence are doomed tofail (Gal. 3:lO). Those believers who have turned to this different gospelhave deserted the one who called them (1:6). Paul is so categoricallyopposed to any effort to alter the gospel message that he declares, “Evenif we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contraryto that which we preached to you, let him be accursed” (v. 8). He reiter-ates this thought in the following verse: “If any one is preaching to you agospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed” (v. 9).(The verb in the first statement is subjunctive [“should preach”], pointingto a hypothetical situation; the verb in the latter is indicative [“is preach-ing”], pointing to an actual situation.) Surely Paul would be this insistentonly on a point of the utmost significance.

Knowing that the gospel is the only route to salvation, Paul is deter-mined to defend it. He writes to the Philippians of his “defense andconfirmation of the gospel” (Phil. 1:7). Those who preach Christ out oflove know that Paul has been in prison for the defense of the gospel(v. 16). In both instances, the Greek word is &rohoyia, a legal termsignifying the case of someone who has been brought to trial. Paul wasprepared to give a reasoned argument for the gospel. It is noteworthythat it is in his letter to the church at Philippi that Paul speaks of hisdefense of the gospel. There is every likelihood that the jailor who hadresponded to Paul’s presentation of the gospel and become a new crea-ture (Acts 16:25-34) was a member of that church. Having witnessed in

1065

that very city an earthshaking demonstration of the power of God tosalvation, could Paul ever have surrendered the gospel? Yet some peoplehave contended that the gospel needs no defense, that it can stand on itsown two feet. This reasoning, however, runs contrary to the pattern ofPaul’s own activity, for example, his speech in the middle of the Areopa-gus (Acts 17: 16-34).17 The objection to an apologetic approach rests upona misconception of how God works, a failure to recognize that in creatingbelief the Holy Spirit makes use of human minds and reason.

But we must not characterize Paul’s activity as simply a defense of thegospel. He went on the offensive as well. He was eager to proclaim thegood news to all nations. He wanted to see it established everywhere. Hewanted to preach it to the Romans (Rom. 1: 15). He had a sense ofcompulsion about his mission: “Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!”(1 Cor. 9: 16). It had been entrusted to his stewardship, and he had asacred obligation to proclaim it.

This gospel not only cuts across all racial, social, economic, and edu-cational barriers (Rom. 1:16; Gal. 3:28), but also spans the centuries oftime. A message which does not become obsolete (Jude 3) it is thechurch’s sacred trust today. In an age in which most ideas and systemsof thought, as well as techniques and commodities, are of a throwawayvariety, the church has an infallible and enduring resource-a messagewhich is the only means of salvation. The church can display the sameconfidence in the gospel that Paul had, for it is still the same gospel; timehas not eroded its effectiveness.

The church has good news to offer to the world, news which, as weobserved earlier, brings hope. In this respect the message and ministry ofthe church are unique. For in our world today there is little hope. Ofcourse, to varying degrees there has always been a lack of hope. Sopho-cles, in the golden age of Greece some five centuries before Christ, wrote:“Not to be born at all-that is by far the best fate. The second best is assoon as one is born with all speed to return thither whence one hascome.“’ 8 In the twentieth century, however, hopelessness has reachednew proportions. Existentialism has spawned literary works like Jean-Paul Sartre’s No Exit and Albert Camus’s “Myth of Sisyphus.” There islittle encouraging news, whether social, economic, or political, in thenewspapers. In Herzog Saul Bellow has captured well the spirit of theentire age: “But what is the philosophy of this generation? Not God isdead, that period was passed long ago. Perhaps it should be stated deathis God. This generation thinks-and this is its thought of thoughts-that

17. F. F. Bruce, The Defence of the Gospel in the New Tmtament (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1959), pp. 37-48.

18. Sophocles Oedipus at Colonus 1224.

1066 The Church The Role of the Church 1067

nothing faithful, vulnerable, fragile can be durable or have any truepower. Death waits for these things as a cement floor waits for a droppinglight bulb.“19 By contrast, the church says with Peter, “Blessed be the Godand Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy we have beenborn anew to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ fromthe dead” (1 Peter 1:3). There is hope, and it comes to fulfrlment when webelieve and obey the gospel.

The gospel offers its blessings of peace, joy, and satisfaction in a waycontrary to what we expect. (This is not surprising, since Jesus was notthe kind of Messiah his contemporaries expected.) We do not obtain thebenefits of the gospel by seeking them directly, for Jesus said, “Whoeverwould save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake andthe gospels will save it” (Mark 8:35). It is only when we give up our ownwill, self-seeking, and pride, that peace, joy, and satisfaction emerge. Thesame point can be made regarding the matter of self-esteem. Those whoseek to build up their self-esteem will fail For genuine self-esteem is aby-product of exalting and esteeming God.

Because the gospel has been, is, and will always be the way of salva-tion, the only way, the church must preserve the gospel at all costs. Whenthe gospel is modified, the vitality of the church is lost. The church dies.Kenneth Scott Latourette notes what resulted when rationalism ate awayparts of the gospel message, and particularly the person of Christ:

Those forms [of the church] which conformed so much to the environ-ment that they sacrificed this timeless and placeless identity died out withthe passing of the age, the society, and the climate of opinion to whichthey had adjusted themselves. The central core of the uniqueness ofJesus, of fidelity to his birth, life, teachings, death, and resurrection asevents in history, and of belief in God’s working through him for therevelation of Himself and the redemption of man proved essential tocontinuing life.*O

The truth of Latourette’s observations has been evident in twentieth-century Christianity. Groups which in the first half of the century aban-doned the gospel of supernatural regeneration through faith in a super-natural, atoning Christ have not prospered. Indeed, they have declined,as spiritual momentum ebbed from them. Conservative evangelicalgroups, on the other hand, have grown. Those groups which have contin-ued to preach the gospel Paul preached, which have offered an authentic

19. Quoted in Sam Keen, “Death in a Posthuman Era,” in New Theology No. 5, ed.Martin E. Marty and Dean G. Peer-man (New York: Macmillan, 1968), p. 79.

20. Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of the Expansion of Chridmity (New York:Harper and Brothers, 1943, vol. 7, p. 492.

alternative to an unbelieving or secular world, have succeeded in winningnon-Christians. This phenomenon has been examined in books like DeanKelley’s Why Conservative Churches Are Growing.21 The gospel is still thepower of God for salvation to everyone who believes, just as it was in thefirst century.

The Character of the Church

We must not limit our study of the role of the church to an investiga-tion of what the church does, that is, its functions. The attitude ordisposition with which the church performs its functions is also a matterof extreme importance. Since the church is, in its continuing existence,Christ’s body and bears his name, it should be characterized by theattributes Christ manifested during his physical incarnation on earth.Two of these attributes are crucial as the church operates in our rapidlychanging world: willingness to serve and adaptability.

Willingness to Serve

Jesus stated that his purpose in coming was not to be served, but toserve (Matt. 20:28). In becoming incarnate he took upon himself the formof a servant (Phil. 2:7). “He humbled himself and became obedient untodeath, even death on a cross” (v. 8). The church must display a similarwillingness to serve. It has been placed in the world to serve its Lord andthe world, not to be exalted and have its own needs and desires satisfied.Although the church may attain great size, wealth, and prestige, it is nothere for that purpose.

Jesus did not associate with people for what they could in turn do forhim. If he had, he would never have gone to Zacchaeus’s home, orengaged the Samaritan woman in conversation, or allowed the sinfulwoman to wash his feet in the house of Simon the Pharisee. These wereacts of which a modern campaign manager or public-relations expertwould certainly have disapproved, for they were not helpful in gainingJesus prestige or favorable publicity. But Jesus was not interested inexploiting people. Similarly, the church today will not determine its activ-ity on the basis of what will enable it to prosper and grow. Rather, it willseek to follow its Lord’s example of service. It will be willing to go to theundesirables and helpless, those who cannot give anything in return to

2 1. Dean M:Kelley, Why Conservutive Churches Are Growing (New York: Harper andRow, 1977).

I OhH The Church

the church. A true representative of the church will even be willing togive his or her life, if necessary, for the sake of its ministry.

Willingness to serve means that the church will not seek to dominatesociety for its own purposes. The question of the relationship of churchand state has had a long and complex history. Scripture tells us that thestate, like the church, is an institution created by God for a specificpurpose (Rom. 13: l-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17). Many models of church-staterelationships have been devised and put into practice. Some of thesemodels have involved such a close alliance between the two that thepower of the state virtually compelled church membership and certainreligious practices. But in such cases the church was acting as a masterrather than a servant. The right goal was pursued, but in the wrongfashion (as would have been the case had Jesus succumbed to thetemptation to fall down and -worship Satan in exchange for all thekingdoms of the world). This is not to say that the church should notreceive the benefits which the state provides for all within its realm, orthat the church should not address the state on issues regarding whichlegislation is to be enacted. But it will not seek to use political force tocompel spiritual ends.

Adaptability

The church must also be versatile and flexible in adjusting its methodsand procedures to the changing situations of the world in which it findsitself. It must go where needy persons are to be found, even if that meansa geographical or cultural change. It must not cling to all its old ways. Asthe world to which it is trying to minister changes, the church will haveto adapt its ministry accordingly, but without altering its basic direction.

As the church adapts, it will be emulating its Lord, who did not hesitateto come to earth to redeem humanity. In doing so, he took on theconditions of the human race (Phil. 258). In similar fashion, the body ofChrist will preserve the basic message with which it has been entrusted,and continue to fulfil the major functions of its task, but will make alllegitimate changes which are necessary in order to carry out its Lord’spurposes. The stereotypical church-a rural congregation headed by butone minister and consisting of a group of nuclear families who meet ateleven o’clock on Sunday morning in a small white building with asteeple-still exists in some places. But it is the exception. Circumstancesare now very different in most parts of the world. If the church has asense of mission like that of its Lord, however, it will find ways to reachpcoplc wherever they are.

II_-

The Government of the Church

Forms of Church GovernmentEpiscopalPresbyterianCongregationalNongovernment

Constructing a System of Church Government for Today

uuith the emphasis upon ecumenism, the question of theorganization or government of the church has risen to special visibilityin the twentieth century. For if there are to be close fellowship andcooperation, there must be some agreement upon the seat of authority.If, for example, a minister who belongs to one denomination is to preachand officiate at the Lord’s Supper in another, there must be some agree-ment as to who is a duly ordained minister, which in turn presupposesagreement upon who has the power to ordain. For the question of churchgovernment is in the final analysis a question of where authority resideswithin the church and who is to exercise it. Actually, the advocates of thevarious forms of church government agree that God is (or has) theultimate authority. Where they differ is in their conceptions of how orthrough whom he expresses or exercises it.

1069

I070 The Church The Government of the Church

Forms of Church Government

:Throughout the history of the church there have been several basicforms of church government. Our study will begin with the most highlystructured and move on to the less structured. After we have carefullyexamined the basic forms, we will attempt to determine whether one ispreferable.

Episcopal

In the episcopal form of church government, authority resides in thebishop (i&~orroq). There are varying degrees of episcopacy, that is tosay, the number of levels of bishops varies. The simplest form of episcopalgovernment is found in the Methodist church, which has only one levelof bishops. Somewhat more developed is the governmental structure ofthe Anglican or Episcopal church, while the Roman Catholic Church hasthe most complete system of hierarchy, with authority be@g vestedespecially in the supreme pontiff, the bishop of Rome, the pope. Thegenius of the episcopal system is that authority is fixed in a particularoffice, that of the bishop.

Inherent in the episcopal structure is the idea of different levels ofministry or different degrees of ordination.1 The first level is that of theordinary minister or priest. In some churches there are steps or divisionswithin this first level, for example, deacon and elder. The clergy at thislevel are authorized to perform all of the basic duties associated with theministry, that is, they preach and administer the sacraments. Beyond thislevel, however, there is a second level of ordination, which constitutesone a bishop and invests him with certain special powers.

The bishop is the key to the functioning of church government. Somewould go as far as to say that the episcopacy is of the very essence of thechurch: the church cannot exist without it.* Indeed, a few would evenassert that the episcopacy is the church. Those who claim that theepiscopacy is necessary to the very being of the church include theRoman Catholics and Anglo-Catholics (or High-Church Anglicans). Others,such as Low-Church Anglicans, see the system of bishops as but one ofa number of forms of church government with scriptural basis.3 Theydo, however, view episcopacy as the best system for doing the work of

I. Leon Morris, “Church, Nature and Government of (Episcopalian View),” in Encyclo-pcdiu of C’hristiunity, ed. Gary G. Cohen (Marshalltown, Del.: National Foundation forChristian Education, 1968), vol. 2, p. 483.

2. A. G. Hebert, The Form of the Church (London: Faber and Faber, 1944), pp. 109-23.3. Morris, Enqvclopedia of Christianity, vol. 2, p. 485.

1071

the kingdom. It is desirable and perhaps even necessary for the well-being,but not the being, of the church. The church can exist without an episco-pacy, but wiJl not be at its best. Therefore, the powers of the bishop areconsiderable, if not absolute. Finally, there are churches which retain theoffice of bishop, but with considerably lessened powers. Throughout thehistory of the Methodist church, for example, the amount of powergranted to the bishops has varied.4

The role of the bishops is to exercise the power of God which has beenvested in them. Their authority transcends that of ordinary ministers. Inparticular, as Gods representatives and pastors they govern and care for agroup of churches rather than merely one local congregation.5

One particular power of the bishop is ordination. He has the authorityto ordain ministers or priests. In laying hands upon a candidate for ordi-nation, the bishop vests in the candidate the powers which attach to theministry. The bishop also has the authority of pastoral placement. Intheory, he has absolute power to place a minister in a particular localparish. In practice, however, the episcopacy has tended toward a greaterdemocratization in recent years; the bishop or his representative usuallyconsults the local congregation regarding their wishes and sometimeseven permits the congregation a considerable amount of initiative in thematter. This is much more characteristic of the Methodist than of theRoman Catholic Church. The bishop also has the responsibility of preserv-ing the true faith and the proper order within a particular geographicalarea. He exercises discipline within his diocese or conference.

Viewed as the primary channel by which God expresses his authorityupon earth, bishops have in times past exercised wide responsibilities intemporal affairs. In some forms of episcopacy, they are considered theprinces of the church or even, as we have already suggested, the churchitself. Certain communions regard the bishops as the successors to theapostles. By the laying on of hands in the ceremony of ordination, theauthority of the apostles has been transmitted down through history tothe bishops of today. According to this theory, which is known as thetheory of apostolic succession, modern bishops have the authority whichthe apostles had, authority which the apostles had in turn received fromChristP

There is, in this scheme, little distinction between the visible and the

4. Gerald F. Moede, The Office of Bishop in Methodism: Its History and Development(Nashville: Abingdon, 1964).

5. Leon Morris, “Church Government,” in Baker? Dictionary of Theology, ed.Everett F. Harrison (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1960), p. 126.

6. Kenneth E. Kirk, “The Apostolic Ministry,” in The Apostolic Ministry, ed.Kenneth E. Kirk (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1946), p. 43.

1072 The Church The Government of the Church

invisible church. The bishops define the church. They are not chosenfrom below, but from above. A bishop is a bishop because he has beenchosen either by someone on a higher level (such as an archbishop) orby other bishops. Where those who are to rule or guide the church areselected by people at a lower level, it is questionable whether a bishopricreally exists, even if the name is used.

The most highly developed episcopal form of government is thatfound within the Roman Catholic Church.7 Here the bishop of Romeemerged as the supreme bishop and came to be referred to as the popeor the father of the entire church. He governs through archbishops, whosuperintend large areas. Beneath them are the bishops, to whom thepriests are responsible.

Until Vatican Council I (1869-1870), the pope was viewed as havingsupreme authority, but only when he acted in concert with the otherbishops. At that council, however, it was decided that he has supremeand virtually unlimited authority in his own right. For Vatican I declaredthat when the pope speaks ex cathedra (in his official capacity) in mattersof faith and practice, he is infallible.8 The exact character of this authoritywas never fully defined, however, for immediately after the decision wasmade, the France-Prussian War broke out, and the council had to ad-journ before it could determine just what it meant by infallibility. In asense, Vatican II (1962-1965) was an attempt to take up and completethe unfinished business of Vatican I.

There is considerable difference of opinion as to when the pope isspeaking = cathedra, and how many such statements there have beenin the history of the church. The pope does not ordinarily preface adecree by stating, “1 am about to make an ex cathedra pronouncement.”Being wise and careful leaders, the popes have been cautious aboutidentifying their official declarations as ex cathedra, since once made,such rulings can never be reversed or altered.

In practice, the pope exercises his authority through the bishops. Whilethey may act independently of him, the fact remains that they havereceived their powers from him. He is the absolute and ultimate sourceof authority within the church. Authority derives from above and flowsdownward. There is one check, however, upon the office and power ofthe pope. He cannot name his successor; the new pope is elected by theCollege of Cardinals. Yet it is the pope who has appointed the cardinals,and new popes are selected from among their number. Thus the popesdo, in a sense, have a part in determining their successors.

7. Ludwig Ott, Frrndumentds of Cutholic Dogma, ed. James Canon Bastible (St. Louis:B. l~ctdut~, I %O), pp. 27043.

8. Ihid., pp. 286-87.

107.3

Several arguments are advanced in support of the episcopal form ofgovernment. The case usually begins with a declaration that Christ is thefounder of the church? He provided it with an authoritative governingstructure. For immediately after asserting that all authority in heaven andon earth is his (Matt. 28:18), he sent forth the eleven apostles in thatauthority (w. 19-20; Acts 1:B). It is to be noted that, to the best of ourknowledge, the apostles were the only officers Jesus appointed. It might beconcluded that they were the only persons in the New Testament with theright to exercise ecclesiastical oversight or authority (<ouaiol).io We do findevidence, howeveG that they began to delegate some of their authority toothers, notably Timothy and Titus. In addition, the apostles evidentlyappointed elders or rulers in the local churches. When Paul and Barnabasjourneyed through Galatia, strengthening and encouraging the churcheswhich they had earlier established, they “appointed elders for them inevery church, with prayer and fasting, [and] committed them to the Lordin whom they believed” (Acts 1423). Even where it is not clear that theprocess of selection rested with the apostles, it was they who did theordaining. When the church in Jerusalem chose seven men “of goodrepute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom,” to assist in the work, they were“set before the apostles, [who] prayed and laid their hands upon them”(Acts 6:3,6).

A second argument is the position occupied by James within the churchof Jerusalem. His authority was similar to that later held by bishops. Herethen is precedent for the episcopal system.”

Finally, there is the historical argument that there is a line of directsuccession from the apostles to today’s bishops. It is maintained thatthrough the ordination process the authority of the apostles has beenpassed down to modern-day bishops.12

There are also various objections to the episcopal form of churchgovernment. One is that the system is too formalized; there tends to bemore emphasis on the office than on the person who holds it. In the NewTestament, authority was given only to those who were spiritually quali-fied and sound in doctrine. Paul warned the Corinthians about certainpeople who claimed to work on the same terms he did: “Such men arefalse apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles ofChrist” (2 Cor. 11:13). Paul also warned the Galatians about false teachers,

9. Edward J. Gratsch, “The Development of Ecclesiology,” in Principles of CutholicTheology, ed. Edward J. Gratsch (New York: Alba House, 1980), pp. 157-60.

10. A. M. Farrer, “The Ministry in the New Testament,” in The Apostolic Ministry,pp. 113-82.

11. Ibid., p. 181.12. Ott, Catholic Dogmu, pp. 282-85.

1074 The Church The Government of the Church

pronouncing an anathema upon any, even angels, who might preach agospel different from what he had preached to them (Gal. l&9). What aperson is, does, believes, and says is of far more importance than anyposition he might hold. Indeed, the latter is to be determined by the former,not the former by the latter.13

Exception is also taken to the theory of apostolic succession. The histor-ical record seems weak and ambiguous at best. Further, there is no expressevidence of anyone’s conveying the power to ordain, although variouspersons are reported to have laid their hands upon others. Nor is there anydescription in the Scriptures of any very highly developed government, orany report of a command to preserve or perpetuate a particular form ofgovernment. In addition, there is scant indication of any difference inauthority between bishops and elders. For example, while Acts 6:6 speaksof the apostles’ laying their hands on the seven at Jerusalem, Timothyreceived his gift when the elders laid hands upon him (1 Tim. 4: 14). Thebiblical data here are simply not as clear or unequivocal as we woulddesire.14

Further, advocates of the episcopal form of church government giveinsficient attention to Christ’s direct exercise of lordship over the church.He installed Paul without any intermediary; no other apostle was involved.Paul makes much of this point in jus@ing his apostleship (Gal. 1:15-17).Now if Paul received his office directly from God, might not others as well?In other words, in at least this one case apostolic authority does not seemto rest upon previous apostolic authority.15

Presbyterian

The presbyterian system of church government places primary au-thority in a particular office as well, but there is less emphasis upon theindividual office and officeholder than upon a series of representativebodies which exercise that authority. The key officer in the presbyterianstructure is the elder,16 a position which harks back to the Jewish syn-agogue. In Old Testament times the elders were persons who had rulingor governing roles and capacities. They held their authority by reason oftheir age and experience. Elders are also found in the New Testamentchurch. In Acts 11:30 we read of the presence of elders in the Jerusalem

13. Hcbert, Form of the Church, p. 110.14. S. L. Greenslade, “The Ministry in the Early Church,” in The Ministry of the Church

(London: Canterbury, 1947), pp. 55-61.IS. Morris, “Church Government,” pp. 126-27.16. R. Laird Harris, “Church, Nature and Government of (Presbyterian View),” in

E?qdopdiu of Christianity vol. 2, pp. 490-92.

1075

congregation: the brethren in Antioch provided relief to the believers inJerusalem, “sending it to the elders by the hand of Barr&as and Saul.”We have already observed that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in allthe churches (Acts 1423). Paul summoned the elders of Ephesus toMiletus and addressed them (Acts 20: 17). The pastoral Epistles also makemention of elders. Some of those who advocate the presbyterian form ofgovernment maintain that the terms eZder and bishop are interchange-able, and thus the term &riauo~os in passages like 1 Timothy 3:1-2 andTitus 1:7 is to be understood as referring to elders. It should be noted,however, that the term elder (~~~~u/%E~os) usually occurs in the plural,suggesting that the authority of the elders is collective rather than indi-vidual.

It seems that in New Testament times the people chose their elders,men whom they assessed to be particularly qualified to rule the church.This practice appears to be consistent with the filling of other offices. Thewhole congregation put forward Barsabbas and Matthias as candidatesto replace Judas among the apostles, the final choice being made by thecasting of lots (Acts 1:23-26). The group asked in their prayer that Goduse the casting of lots to reveal the man whom he had already selected.Similarly, the whole body of believers at Jerusalem picked the seven men“of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom,” to assist the apostles(Acts 6:3). In this respect, the New Testament procedure was quite differ-ent from the selection of elders in the synagogue, which was basically amatter of seniority.

In selecting elders to rule the church, the people were conscious ofconfirming, by their external act, what the Lord had already done. Thechurch was exercising on Christ’s behalf the power or authority whichhe had delegated to it. That God chooses the leaders of his church isindicated in several places in the New Testament. In Acts 20~28 Paul urgesthe elders of Ephesus: “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, inwhich the Holy Spirit has made you guardians [MUKOTOL], to feed thechurch of the Lord which he obtained with his own blood.” He writes tothe Corinthians, “And God has appointed in the church first apostles,second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers,helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues” (1 Cor.12:28). We assume that the offices of bishop and elder are implicit in thislist. Other indications that God chooses the officers of his church includeMatthew 16: 19; John 20:22-23; and Ephesians 411-12.

The authority of Christ is to be understood as dispensed to individualbelievers and delegated by them to the elders who represent them. Onceelected or appointed, the elders function on behalf of or in the place of

I076 The Church The Government of the Church 1077

the individual believers. It is therefore at the level of the elders that divineauthority actually functions within the church.17

This authority is exercised in a series of governing assemblies. At thelevel of the local church the session (Presbyterian)18 or consistory (Re-formed)19 is the decision-making group. All the churches in one area aregoverned by the presbytery (Presbyterian) or classis (Reformed), whichis made up of one lay elder and one minister from each consistory(Reformed), or one lay elder from each session and all the ministers inthe area (Presbyterian). The next grouping is the synod, made up of anequal number of lay elders and clergy chosen by each presbytery orclassis. At the highest level the Presbyterian church also has a GeneralAssembly, composed again of lay and clergy representatives from thepresbyteries. Note that the synods are bypassed in this process; they donot choose the representatives to the General Assembly. Rather, thepresbyteries select the representatives to both the synods and the Gen-eral Assembly.*O Decisions are made by the governing body at each level.These decisions are subject to review and revision by the next highestbody. This process does not so much originate or legislate action, as it,particularly in conservative settings, interprets and applies the explicitteachings of Christ and guidelines of the church.

The prerogatives of each of the governing bodies are spelled out inthe constitution of the denomination. For example, the session of eachlocal church chooses its own pastor. The presbytery must confirm thischoice, however. The presbytery also holds title to the property utilizedby the local congregation, although this policy is being modified some-what by recent court cases. No group has any authority over the othergroups on its level. For example, no presbytery has authority over anotherpresbytery. Appeal for action may be made to the synod, however, if bothpresbyteries in a dispute belong to the same synod; if not, an appeal maybe made to the General Assembly. Similarly, a session that is displeasedwith another within its presbytery may appeal its case to the presbytery.

The presbyterian system differs from the episcopal in that there isonly one level of clergy. 21 There is only the teaching elder or pastor. Nohigher levels, such as bishop, exist. Of course, certain persons are elected

to administrative posts within the ruling assemblies. They are selected(from below) to preside or supervise, and generally bear a title such asstated clerk of the presbytery. They are not bishops, there being nospecial ordination to such office. There is no special authority attachedto the office. The only power these officers have is an executive power tocarry out the decisions of the group which elected them. Thus, theauthority belongs to the electing body, not to the office or its occupant.Moreover, there is a limited term of service, so that occupancy of theoffice is dependent upon the continued intention and will of the body.

In the presbyterian system, there is a deliberate coordinating of clergyand laity. Both groups are included in all of the various governing assem-blies. Neither has special powers or rights which the other does not have.A distinction is drawn, however, between ruling elders (laity) and teachingelders (clergy). This distinction was not so clear-cut in biblical times. Forwhile much of the teaching (the work of the clergy) was done by theapostles, prophets, and evangelists, some of it was done by the rulingelders, as is indicated in 1 Timothy 5: 17: “Let the elders who rule well beconsidered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preach-ing and teaching.” While this verse indicates that ruling elders engagedin teaching, it also suggests that some specialization was already takingplace. As the apostles gradually passed from the scene, and as hereticalinterpretation arose, the need for authoritative teaching grew. Thus, theoffice of teaching elder came into being. Certain men were released fromother activities in order to give full-time attention and energy to rightlyinterpreting and teaching the meaning of the Word.

A vigorous case is made by the advocates of the presbyterian form ofchurch government. Their argument begins with the observation thatthe Jewish synagogue was ruled by a group of elders, and the Christianchurch, at least initially, functioned within the synagogue. Its peopleevangelized there and evidently organized their assemblies in a similarfashion. There was apparently some sort of governing council or com-mittee. Paul beseeches the Thessalonians “to respect those who laboramong you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you” (1 Thess.5: 12). The writer to the Hebrews exhorts his readers, “Obey your leadersand submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as menwho will have to give account” (Heb. 13: 17). The decision of the Jerusalemcouncil (Acts 15) is an example of this type of church government inaction.**

Furthermore, the presbyterian system of government preserves sev-eral essential New Testament principles of polity. One of these is thelordship of Christ. In the presbyterian system, his will and his Word are

17. The Constitution of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America(Philadelphia: Office of the General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church in thellnited States of America, 1967), vol. 2, &ok of Order, chapter 9.

18. Ibid., chapter I 1.19. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), pp. 588-89.20. Park Hays Miller, Why I Am a Presbyterian (New York: Thomas Nelson, 1956)

pp. 77H.2 I. Charles Hedge, The Church and Its Polity (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons,

1879), p. 1 19. 22. Harris, Encyclopedia of Christianity, vol. 2, p. 492.

1078 The Church The Government of the Church

the ultimate standards by which the church determines its actions. Sec-ond, the principle of participation by the people is preserved. They havedirect access to God and the right to express their personal opinions.Third, the presbyterian system maintains the concept of corporateness:each individual is seen as part of the body. Finally, the power of the localchurch resides in a group, the elders, not in just one minister or elderwho derives his authority from a bishop.23

Critical objections come especially from those who advocate a moreindividualistic or congregational type of church government. They objectthat the presbyterian system is rooted in a hierarchy of governing bodiesfor which little or no support is found within Scripture.24 Further, theyobject that the presbyterian polity does not give each and every believeran adequate part in church government. While the presbytery and thesession are in theory servants and representatives of the individual be-lievers, they may well come to assume a ruling role. Many decisionswhich could be referred to the church membership as a whole are not.Thus, although intended to represent and carry out the authority ofindividual believers, the presbyterian structure of church governmenthas on occasion usurped that authority?5

Congregational

A third form of church government stresses the role of the individualChristian and makes the local congregation the seat of authority. Twoconcepts are basic to the congregational scheme: autonomy and democ-racy. By autonomy we mean that the local congregation is independentand self -governing.26 There is no external power which can dictate‘courses of action to the local church. By democracy we mean that everymember of the local congregation has a voice in its affairs. It is theindividual members of the congregation who possess and exercise au-thority. Authority is not the prerogative of a lone individual or selectgroup. Neither a monarchical (episcopal) nor oligarchical (presbyterian)structure is to take the place of the individual. A secondary sense of theprinciple of democracy in the congregational system is that decisionswithin interchurch associations are made on a representative basis.Among the major denominations which practice the congregationalform of government are the Baptists, Congregationalists, and most Lu-theran groups.

23. Ibid., p. 495; Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 581-84.24. Franz Pieper, Christian Dogmatics (St. Louis: Concordia, 1953). vol. 3, p. 421.25. Ibid., p. 43 I.26. Ibid., p. 475.

1079

It is necessary to examine the principles of autonomy and democracymore closely. The principle of autonomy is believed to reflect the basicNew Testament position on church government. In Acts and the Epistlesthe primary focus is upon the local church. There is no reference to anystructure above or beyond it. There is no command to form interchurchunions of any type. 27 We find no instance of control over a local churchby outside organizations or individuals. The apostles made recommen-dations and gave advice, but exercised no real ruler-ship or control. EvenPaul had to argue for his apostolic authority and beseech his readers tofollow his teachings (Gal. 1:l l-24).

The principle of autonomy means that each local church is self-governing. Each congregation calls its own pastor and determines itsown budget. It purchases and owns property independently of any out-side authorities.28 While it may seek advice from other churches anddenominational officials, it is not bound to follow that advice, and itsdecisions do not require outside ratification or approval.

A congregation may enter into cooperative affiliations, but these arestrictly voluntary in nature. Such affiliations are, in general, desirable forseveral reasons. First, they display in visible form the unity present withinthe universal or invisible church. Second, they provide and promoteChristian fellowship on a wider basis than is possible within a singlecongregation. Further, they enable service and ministry in a more effec-tive fashion than does the local church alone. Missions, the establishmentof new congregations, and youth activities (e.g., camping) are among anumber of undertakings which are more feasible on a large scale. Thereasons for such affiliations, then, are primarily pragmatic. Joining suchgroups and adhering to their decisions are voluntary on the part of thelocal church. Moreover, the relationship may be terminated by the indi-vidual congregation whenever it chooses. The associations, conventions,or conferences formed by local churches must themselves operate on ademocratic basis. No one church, group of churches, or individual maydominate, control, or dictate to the others. Voting is on a representativebasis, usually in proportion to the size of the individual churches involved.As in the presbyterian form of government, any leaders engaged areservants, not masters, of the churches and their members. They serve bythe will of the membership of the local congregations and for specifiedlimited periods. They bear titles like executive secretary, but are in nosense bishops.

There is one point at which the autonomy of the local congregation

27. Ibid., p. 42 1.28. Edward T. Hiscox, The New Directory for Baptist Churches (Philadelphia: Judson,

1894), pp. 153-59.

The Church The Government of the Church

must be qualified. When a congregation is accepting financial subsidiza-tion from a larger fellowship of churches, the association or conventionwill want to be fully informed of the actions of the local body, and mayeven proceed to lay down some guidelines and restrictions which thelatter must follow. (This is not surprising, for accepting a loan or mort-gage from a bank entails assuming certain obligations and restrictions.)It should be borne in mind, however, that the restrictions are voluntarilyassumed; the congregation has not been compelled to accept assistance.

The concept of democracy means that authority within the localcongregation rests with the individual members. Much is made here ofthe priesthood of all believers. It is felt that this principle would besurrendered if bishops or elders were given the decision-making prerog-ative. The work of Christ has made such rulers unnecessary, for nowevery believer has access to the Holy of Holies and may directly approachGod. Moreover, as Paul has reminded us, each member or part of thebody has a valuable contribution to make to the welfare of the whole.29

There are some elements of representative democracy within thecongregational form of church government. Certain persons are electedby a free choice of the members of the body to serve in special ways?OThey are representatives and servants of the church. They are answer-able to those who have chosen them. They are not to exercise theirauthority independently of or contrary to the wishes of the people. Ifthey do, they may be removed from office. All major decisions, however,such as the calling of a pastor and the purchase or sale of property, aremade by the church as a whole. This power is reserved to the entiremembership by the constitution of the church. In these and all othermatters of congregational decision, every member of voting age, regard-less of social or economic status, has one vote.

In the congregational form of government, as in the presbyterian,there is only one level of clergy. The titles of bishop, elder, and pastor arebelieved to be different names for the same office; it has been suggestedthat they designate different functions or different aspects of the minis-try.31 It is noteworthy that when addressing the elders of Ephesus (Acts20:17) Paul advised, “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, inwhich the Holy Spirit has made you guardians [irria~orro~, bishops], tofeed [~o~~(Y&LY, to shepherd or pastor] the church of the Lord which he

29. William Roy McNutt, Polity and Practice in LIaptkt Churches (Philadelphia: Judson,1935), pp. 2 l-26.

30. James M. Bulman, “Church, Nature and Government of (Autonomous View),” inE~x:vclopediu of Christiunity, vol. 2, p. 478.

3 I. Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Westwood, N.J.: Revell, 1907), pp.914-15.

obtained with his own blood” (v. 28). It is argued that the use of all threeterms in connectidn with the same group indicates equivalency. The onlyother office is a lay office, that of the deacon (literally, “the one whoserves”).

Several arguments are advanced for making the congregational sys-tem the normative form of church government. In the earliest days ofthe church, which are recounted by the Book of Acts, the congregationas a whole chose persons for office and determined policy.32 They choseJudas’s successor (Acts 1). They selected the first deacons (Acts 6). Whilethere is no explicit statement that the congregation as a whole wasinvolved in appointing Paul and Barnabas to their work (Acts 13: l-3), wedo draw that conclusion from the fact that when they returned toAntioch, they made their report to the whole church (Acts 14:27). And itwas the whole church that sent Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem to helpsettle the question of circumcision (Acts 15:2-3). Similarly, the wholechurch of Jerusalem sent the reply: “Then it seemed good to the apostlesand the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among themand send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judascalled Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren” (v. 22).What of the apparent appointing of elders by the apostles (Acts 14:23)?One possible interpretation is that they may not actually have beenchosen by the apostles. Perhaps the apostles suggested the idea andpresided at the ordination, but the choice was made by the people. Thisis in fact the pattern in Acts 6.

Further, Jesus’ teaching would seem to be opposed to the specialleadership positions found within the episcopal and presbyterianschemes of government. He censured those who sought rank aboveother persons. When his disciples disputed which of them was the great-est, Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship overthem; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But notso with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest,and the leader as one who serves. For which is the greater, one who sitsat table, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I amamong you as one who serves” (Luke 22:25-27). A leader, then, is actuallyto be the servant of all. A proper sense of servanthood will result ifleaders keep in mind that they have been chosen by those whom theyserve and are answerable to them. Jesus also taught that we are not toseek special distinctions and titles: “But you are not to be called rabbi,for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren” (Matt. 23:8). Theseteachings of Jesus would seem to favor a democratic structure withinthe Christian church.

32. Ibid., p. 906.

1082 The Church The Government of the Church

Another consideration is that both Jesus and Paul taught that theauthority to discipline belongs to the group as a whole, not some individ-ual or set of leaders. In Jesus’ discussion of the treatment of a brotherwho has sinned, the final agent of discipline is the church. If the offendingbrother refuses to listen to the church, he is to be treated like a pagan ora tax collector (Matt. 18: 15-17). Paul instructed the Corinthian congre-gation as a whole (1 Cor. 1:2), not merely the elders, to put out of theirfellowship the man who was living immorally with his father’s wife (1 Cor.5).33

Finally, it is observed that the letters of Paul were addressed to thechurches as a whole rather than to a bishop or a group of elders. Theletters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon were written to them as individ-uals, not as leaders of a particular church.J4

But there are several objections to the congregational form of churchgovernment, just as there were to the episcopal and presbyterian forms.The first objection to the congregational scheme is that it disregards thebiblical evidence for apostolic (and hence episcopal) authority. For ex-ample, Paul did appoint elders (Acts 1423) and instructed Titus to do thesame (Titus 1:5). In addition, on many of the occasions when Paul spokeor wrote to the churches, he was not simply offering advice or counsel.He virtually commanded them to do what he said.35

Second, it is noted that there was a separation of the offices of bishop,elder, and deacon rather early in church history. The bishops wereaccorded a special status and authority. If we maintain that this trendwas not already present within the body of Christ in New Testamentdays, we are making the rather large assumption that the church veryquickly departed from its New Testament foundations?6

Finally, while it is true that the letters of Paul are addressed to wholecongregations rather than their leaders, what of Revelation 2-3, Johnsletters to the seven churches? These letters were addressed to the “angel”or “messenger” of the respective congregations, presumably the rulingelder in each case.

Nongovernment

A final view needs to be considered briefly. Actually, those who hold itdo not advocate a particular form of church government as much asthey advocate what might best be termed nongovernment. Certain

33. Ib id . , 905-06 .pp.34. H&ox, New Directory, pp. 155ff.35. Harris, Encyclopedia of Christianity, vol. 2, p. 490.36. Morris, Encyclopedia of Christ&@, vol. 2, p. 484.

1083

groups, such as the Quakers (Friends) and the Plymouth Brethren, denythat the church has a need for a concrete or visible form. Accordingly,they have virtually eliminated all governmental structure. They stressinstead the inner working of the Holy Spirit; he exerts his influence uponand guides individual believers in a direct fashion rather than throughorganizations or institutions.

Quakers emphasize the concept of “inner light.” Since church mem-bership has strictly minimal significance, there are no explicit rules forjoining. In the local groups there may be elders or overseers who havecertain responsibilities. Meetings are held to determine courses of action.However, no votes are ever taken. Instead, the decisions are made by amutual agreement produced by the Holy Spirit.37

The Plymouth Brethren virtually eliminate the visible church. Theyhold that the church exists on earth primarily in its invisible form, whichis made up of all true believers. Thus, there is no need for an organizationinvolving specific officeholders as such. The presidency of the Holy Spiritis the ruling force.38

In each of these groups there is a concerted effort to eliminate asmuch structural organization as possible. They rely upon the Holy Spiritto work in a direct fashion, to lead them to conviction of what he wantsdone. Those who hold this position are to be commended for accentuat-ing the role of the Holy Spirit and the need to rely upon him. However,their assumption of a universal direct working of the Spirit is not justifiedby the biblical evidence. Moreover, the degree of sanctification and sen-sitivity to the Holy Spirit which they posit of the members of a congre-gation is an unrealistic ideal. The main issue here is whether we regardthe Bible or some more direct communication by the Holy Spirit as God’sprimary guide for OLU- lives. In keeping with the principle that has markedthe whole of OUT study thus far, we consider Scripture to be the mostimportant means of revelation.

Constructing a System of Church Government for Today

Attempts to develop a structure of church government which adheresto the authority of the Bible encounter difficulty at two points. The firstis the lack of didactic material. There is no prescriptive exposition of

37. Rufus M. Jones, The Faith and Practice of the Quakers, 3rd ed. (London: Methuen,1928), pp. 54-69.

38. Clarence B. Bass, The Doctrine of the Church in the Theology of J A! Da& withSpecial Reference to Its Contribution to the Plymouth Brethren Movement (Ann Arbor,Mich.: University Microfilms, 1952), p. 116.

10x4 The Church

what the government of the church is to be like. There simply is nothingcomparable to, say, Paul’s elucidation of the doctrines of human sinful-ness and justification by faith. The churches are not commanded toadopt a particular form of church order. The only didactic passages onchurch government are Paul’s enumerations of basic qualifications foroffices which already existed (1 Tim. 3: 1-13; Titus 159). Although it ispreferable to build on the basis of didactic or prescriptive rather thannarrative or descriptive passages, in this case we have little choice.

When we turn to examine the descriptive passages, we fir&a secondproblem: there is no unitary pattern. On the one hand, there are stronglydemocratic elements, a fact pointed out by the advocates of the congre-gational form. There also are strongly monarchical elements, particularlythe apostles’ appointing and ordaining officers and instructing thechurches. These passages are highlighted by those who favor the episco-pal approach. From still other passages we conclude that the elders hada strong role.

It is probably safe to say that the evidence from the New Testament isinconclusive; nowhere in the New Testament do we find a picture closelyresembling any of the fully developed systems of today. It is likely that inthose days church government was not very highly developed, indeed,that local congregations were rather loosely knit groups. There may wellhave been rather wide varieties of governmental arrangements. Eachchurch adopted a pattern which fit its individual situation.

It should be borne in mind that at this point the church was justcoming into being; it was not as yet sharply distinguished from Judaism.The pragmatic needs in a period of establishment are, naturally, quitedifferent from those in a later stage of development. Anyone who hasserved as the first pastor of a church, particularly one made up of newChristians, knows that there are occasions when delegation and commit-tee work simply are not practical.

Most of the churches in the New Testament were established byitinerant missionaries. Thus, there was no fixed and permanent ministry.Given these circumstances, it was natural for the apostles to exerciseimmense and unilateral authority. It later became possible and necessary,however, to establish a permanent and resident ministry. In one sense,this should not have been necessary. Ideally, the universal priesthood ofall believers should have obviated the need for offices of authority. Theideal was not at this point practical, however.

Initially, as we would expect, the pattern of the synagogue, that is, asystem of elders, was adopted. This pattern did not become universal,however. In the Greek settings, the office of bishop tended to predomi-nate. In addition, there were some modifying factors already at workproducing a more democratic pattern.

The Government of the Church 1085

Even if it were clear that there is one exclusive pattern of organizationin the New Testament, that pattern would not necessarily be normativefor us today. It would be merely the pattern which was, not the patternwhich must be. But as matters stand, there is so much variation in thedescriptions of the New Testament churches that we cannot discover anauthoritative pattern. We must therefore turn to the principles which wefind in the New Testament, and attempt to construct our governmentalsystem upon them.

We must ask two questions if we are to construct our system in thisfashion. First, in what direction was church government moving withinthe New Testament period? Is there anything which would indicate theultimate outcome? We can discern in the New Testament the beginningsof a movement to ameliorate the situation of women and slaves. Is therea similar movement to improve church governmerrt? If so, we might beable to infer the ideal at which the movement was aiming, although wemight have difficulty ascertaining just how far it was intended to pro-gress. Here unfortunately we have little to go on. We know that thechurch originally took over the pattern of the Jewish synagogue: a groupof elders served as rulers. We also know that while the church was in itsinfancy, the apostle Paul sometimes had to take a directive approach.Other than that we know little. There is no indication that the churchwas moving toward a specific form of church government.

The second question we must ask is, What are the reasons for churchgovernment? What values is it intended to promote and preserve? As hasbeen our approach all along, we will look to the Bible for authoritativeanswers. Once we have determined what Scripture has to say on thematter, we will be able, in accordance with our guidelines for contempor-izing the biblical message, 39 to construct a model of church governmentsuitable for today.

One principle that is evident in the New Testament, and particularly in1 Corinthians, is the value of order. The situation at Corinth, where totalindividuality tended to take over, was not very desirable. At its worst itwas downright destructive. It was necessary, then, to have some controlover the highly individualized ways in which spirituality was being ex-pressed (1 Cor. 1440). It was also desirable to have certain persons re-sponsible for specific ministries. We are reminded here of the situationin Acts 6, where we are told that seven men were appointed to be incharge of the ministry to widows.

Another principle is the priesthood of all believers.4O Each person is

39. See chap. 5.40. Cyril Eastwood, The Priesthood of All Believers (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1962),

pp. 238-57.

1086 The Church

capable of relating to God directly. Several texts teach this truth eitherexplicitly or implicitly (Rom. 5: 1-5; 1 Tim. 25; Heb. 4: 14-16). There is noneed of any special intermediary. All have redemptive access to the Lord.And what is true of the initiation of the Christian life is also true of itscontinuation. Each believer can know God’s will directly.

Finally, the idea that each person is important to the whole body isimplicit throughout the New Testament and explicit in passages likeRomans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12. The multiplicity of gifts suggests thatthe input into decision making should be broadly based. The Book ofActs stresses group consensus (Acts 432; 1522). There is a special senseof fellowship whenever all the members of a community feel that theyhave played a significant part in determining what is to be done.

It is my judgment that the congregational form of church governmentmost nearly fulfils the principles which have been laid down. It takesseriously the principle of the priesthood and spiritual competency of allbelievers. It also takes seriously the promise that the indwelling Spirit willguide all believers.

At the same time, the need for orderliness suggests that a degree ofrepresentative government is necessary In some situations leaders mustbe chosen to act on behalf of the group. Those chosen should always beconscious of their answerability to those whom they represent; andwhere possible, major issues should be brought to the membership as awhole to decide.

We may think of the episcopal system as a structuring of the churchalong monarchical or imperial lines. The presbyterian form is like arepresentative democracy, the congregational a direct democracy. It isnot surprising that the episcopal system developed and thrived duringthe days of monarchies. Monarchy was the system of government towhich people were accustomed and with which they were probably mostcomfortable. In a day of widespread education and political interest,however, people will function best within a presbyterian or congrega-tional system.

It might be concluded that, since most national democracies todayare representative democracies, the presbyterian system would be themost suitable form of church government. But local churches are lesslike national governments than like local governments which hold openhearings and town meetings. The value of direct involvement by well-informed people is considerable. And the principle that decisions are bestmade by those who will be most affected likewise argues for the congre-gational pattern of local autonomy.

Two situations call for some qualification of our conclusion. (1) In avery large church many members may not have sufficient knowledge ofthe issues and candidates for office to make well-informed decisions, and

The Government of the Church 1087

large congregational meetings may be impractical. Here a greater use ofthe representative approach will probably be necessary. Even in thissituation, however, the elected servants must be ever mindful that theyare responsible to the whole body. (2) In a group of immature Christianswhere there is an absence of trained and competent lay leadership, apastor may need to take more initiative than is ordinarily the case. Buthe should also constantly work at instructing and building up the con-gregation so that they might become increasingly involved in the affairsof the church.

52The Initiatory Rite of the Church:Baptism

The Basic Views of BaptismBaptism as a Means of Saving GraceBaptism as a Sign and Seal of the CovenantBaptism as a Token of Salvation

Resolving the IssuesThe Meaning of BaptismThe Subjects of BaptismThe Mode of Baptism

v irtually all Christian churches practice the rite of baptism.They do so in large part because Jesus in his final commission com-manded the apostles and the church to “go . . . and make disciples of allnations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and ofthe Holy Spirit” (h&t. 28:19). It is almost universally agreed that baptismis in some way connected with the beginning of the Christian life; it isone’s initiation into the universal, invisible church as well as the local,visible church. Yet there is also considerable disagreement regardingbaptism.

1089

1090 The Church The Initiatory Rite of the Church: Baptism

Three basic questions about baptism have sparked great controversyamong Christians: (1) What is the meaning of baptism? What does itactually accomplish? (2) Who are the proper subjects of baptism? Is it tobe restricted to those who are capable of exercising conscious faith inJesus Christ, or may it also be administered to children and even infants;and if so, on what basis? (3) What is the proper mode of baptism? Mustit be by dipping (immersion), or are other methods (pouring, sprinkling)acceptable? It could be said that these questions have been arranged indecreasing order of significance, since our conclusion as to the meaningand value of the act of baptism will go far toward determining ourconclusions on the other issues.

The Basic Views of Baptism

Baptism as a Means of Saving Grace

Before we attempt to resolve these issues, it will be wise for us tosketch the various ways in which Christians interpret baptism. Somegroups believe that the act of baptism in water actually conveys grace tothe person baptized. Those who espouse this view speak of baptismalregeneration: baptism actually effects a transformation bringing a personfrom spiritual death to life. The most extreme form of this view is to befound in traditional Catholicism. We will, however, focus on a classicLutheran position which shares many features with Catholicism.

Baptism, according to the sacramental&, i).s a means by which Godimparts saving grace; it results in the remission of sins1 By either awak-ening or strengthening faith, baptism effects the washing of regeneration.In the Lutheran understanding, the sacrament is ineffectual unless faithis already present. In this respect, the Lutheran position differs from theCatholic position, which holds that baptism confers grace ex: opere oper-ato, that is, the sacrament works of itself. The Lutheran view, in otherwords, emphasizes that faith is a prerequisite, while the Catholic doctrinestresses that the sacrament is self-sufficient. The sacrament, it should beemphasized, is not a physical infusion of some spiritual substance intothe soul of the person baptized.

A comparison is often drawn between the sacrament of baptism andthe preaching of the Word. Preaching awakens faith by entering the earto strike the heart. Baptism, on the other hand, reaches and moves theheart via the eye.

The sacrament, it must be understood, is God’s doing. It is not a work

1. Franz Pieper, Christian Dogmatics (St. Louis: Concordia, 1953), vol. 3, p. 264.

1091

offered to God by the person being baptized. Nor is it a work performedby the minister or priest. That is to say, the baptizer does not pour someform of grace into the person being baptized. Rather, baptism is the HolySpirit’s work of initiating people into the church: “For by one Spirit wewere all baptized into one body-Jews or Greeks, slaves or free-and allwere made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Cor. 12: 13).2

Romans 6: l-l 1 is crucial to the sacramental&’ view of baptism. Intheir interpretation of this passage baptism is not simply a picture of ourbeing united with Christ in his death and resurrection. Rather, it actuallyunites us with Christ. When Paul says, “All of us who have been baptizedinto Christ Jesus were baptized into his death” (v. 3), he means thatbaptism actually unites us with Christ’s death. And it will also unite uswith him in his resurrection (v. 5)?

In addition to one’s being objectively united with Christ once and forall by baptism, the sacrament also has a subjective effect on the believer.This effect will last throughout life, even though baptism is administeredonly once. Believers will often be reminded of it. This, in fact, is whatPaul is doing in Romans 6:3-5 as well as in Galatians 3:26-27. Theknowledge that one has been baptized and therefore is united with Christin his death and resurrection will be a constant source of encouragementand inspiration to the believer.4

The subjects of baptism, according to Lutheranism, fall into two gen-eral groups. First, there are adults who have come to faith in Christ.Explicit examples are found in Acts 2:41 and 8:36-38. Second, childrenand even infants were also baptized in New Testament times. Evidence isseen in the fact that children were brought to Jesus to be touched (Mark10: 13-16). In addition, we read in Acts that whole households werebaptized (Acts 11:14 [see 10:48]; 16:15, 31-34; 18:8). It is reasonable toassume that most of these households were not composed exclusively ofadults. Children are part of the people of God, just as surely as, in theOld Testament, they were part of the nation of Israel.5

That children were baptized in the New Testament is precedent forthe practice today. Moreover, the baptism of children is necessary. For allpersons are born into this world with original sin, which is sufficientgrounds for condemnation. The taint of this sin must be removed. Sincechildren are not capable of exercising the faith needed for regeneration,it is essential that they receive the cleansing wrought by baptism.

In Roman Catholic theology, unbaptized infants who die cannot enter

2. Ibid., p. 270.3. Ibid., p. 268.4. Ibid., p. 275.5. Ibid., p. 277.

1092 The Church

into heaven. They are consigned to a place called limbus infuntium.There they do not suffer the pains and deprivation of hell, but neither dothey enjoy the benefits of the blessedness of heaven.6 The Lutherantheologian, on the other hand, is not so sure about the status of unbap-tized infants. There is a possibility that God has a means, not fullyrevealed to us, of producing faith in the unbaptized children of Chris-tians. We are reminded that girls in the Old Testament, though they werenot circumcised, were somehow able to enjoy the benefits of the cove-nant. There is no similar proposal regarding the children of unbelievers,however. Nor is there any dogmatism about any of these matters, sincethey have not been revealed to us, but are among the unsearchablethings of God.7 There is, the Lutheran observes, a long history of thepractice of infant baptism. As a matter of fact, it can be traced back inextrabiblical sources at least to the second century A.D. There is thusgood precedent for the practice. Since we do not know the details ofGod’s dealing with unbaptized children and infants, it is advisable forChristians to baptize their offspring.

The Lutheran theologian is aware of the charge of inconsistencybetween the practice of infant baptism and the insistence upon justifica-tion by faith alone. This apparent dilemma is generally dealt with in oneof two ways. One is the suggestion that infants who are baptized maypossess an unconscious faith. Faith, it is maintained, does not necessarilyrequire reasoning power and self-consciousness. Luther observed thatfaith does not cease when we are asleep, preoccupied, or engaged instrenuous work. Jesus teaches that children can have implicit faith. Eti-dence is found in Matthew 18:6 (“one of these little ones who believe inme”); 19: 14; Mark 1094; and Luke 18:16-17. Another proof is the proph-ecy that John the Baptist “will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even fromhis mother’s womb” (Luke 1:lS). Finally, we have John’s words, “I write toyou, children, because you know the Father” (1 John 2: 13).8 The othermeans of dealing with the apparent inconsistency is to maintain that it isthe faith of the parents that is involved when a child is baptized. Somewould even say that the church has faith on behalf of the child. Infantbaptism, then, rests on vicarious faith?

In Roman Catholicism, this dilemma does not occur. For according toCatholic doctrine, baptism takes effect ex opere operato. Faith is not reallynecessary. The only requisites are that someone present the child and apriest administer the sacrament properly.10

6. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologica, part 3, supplement, question 69, articles 4-7.7. Pieper, Christiun LIogmutics, vol. 3, p. 278.8. Ibid., vol. 2, pp. 448-49.9. Ibid., vol. 3, p. 285.

10. Ibid., p. 256.

The Initiatory Rite of the Church: Baptism 1093

In the Lutheran view, the mode of baptism is not of great importance.It Imust of course involve water, but that is the only crucial factor. To besure, the primary meaning of the word fla&&~ is “to dip.” There areother meanings of the word, however. Consequently we are uncertainwhat method was used in biblical times, or even whether there was onlyone method. Since there is no essential, indispensable symbolism in themode, baptism is not tied to one form.

Baptism as a Sign and Seal of the Covenant

The position held by traditional Reformed and Presbyterian theolo-gians is tied closely to the concept of the covenant. They regard thesacraments, of which baptism is one, as signs and seals of God’s grace.Sacraments are not means of grace ex opere operato or in virtue of someinherent content of the rite itself. Rather, as the Belgic Confession says,they are “visible signs and seals of an inward and invisible thing, bymeans whereof God works in us by the power of the Holy Spirit.“11 Inparticular, they are signs and seals of God’s working out the covenantwhich he has established with the human race. Like circumcision in theOld Testament, baptism makes us sure of God’s promises.

The significance of the sacrament of baptism is not quite as clear-cutto the Reformed and Presbyterian as to the sacramental&. The covenant,God’s promise of grace, is the basis, the source, of justification andsalvation; baptism is the act of faith by which we are brought into thatcovenant and hence experience its benefits. The act of baptism is boththe means of initiation into the covenant and a sign of salvation. CharlesHodge puts it this way: “God, on his part, promises to grant the benefitssignified in baptism to all adults who receive that sacrament in theexercise of faith, and to all infants who, when they arrive at maturity,remain faithful to the vows made in their name when they were bap-tized.“lz In the case of adults, these benefits are absolute, while thesalvation of infants is conditional upon future continuance in the vowsmade.

The subjects of baptism are in many ways the same as in the sacra-mentalists’ view. On the one hand, all believing adults are to be baptized.They have already come to faith. Examples in Scripture are those whoresponded to Peter’s invitation at Pentecost, believed, and were baptized(Acts 2:41) and the Philippian jailor (Acts 16:31-33).13 On the other hand,

11. Belgic Confession 33.12. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), vol. 3,

p. 582.13. Louis Berkhof, Systerrutic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), pp. 63 l-32.

1094 The Church

the children of believing parents are also to be baptized. While thebaptism of children is not explicitly commanded in Scripture, it is none-theless implicitly taught. God made a spiritual covenant with Abrahamand with his seed (Gen. 17:7). This covenant has continued to this day. Inthe Old Testament it is always referred to in the singular (e.g., Exod. 2:24;Lev. 26:42). There is only one mediator of the covenant (Acts 4: 12; 10~43).New Testament converts are participants in or heirs to the covenant (Acts2:39; Rom. 413-18; Gal. 3:13-18; Heb. 613-18). Thus, the situation ofbelievers both in the New Testament and today is to be understood interms of the covenant made with Abraham.14

Since the Old Testament covenant remains in force, its provisions stillapply. If children were included in the covenant then, they are also to beincluded today. We have already observed that the covenant was not onlyto Abraham, but to his seed as well. Also of significance is the all-embracing character of the Old Testament conception of Israel. Childrenwere present when the covenant was renewed (Deut. 2910-13). Joshuaread the writings of Moses in the hearing of the entire congregation-“all the assembly of Israel, and the women, and the little ones” (Josh.8:35). When the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jahaziel, and he spoke theLords word of promise to all Israel, the children were present (2 Chron.20: 13). All of the congregation, including even nursing infants (Joel 2:16),heard Joel’s promise of the outpouring of the Spirit upon their sons anddaughters (v. 28).

A key step in the argument now occurs: as circumcision was the signof the covenant in the Old Testament, baptism is the sign in the NewTestament. Baptism has been substituted for circumcision.15 It is clearthat circumcision has been put away; it no longer avails (Acts 151-2;2 1:2 1; Gal. 2:3-S; 5:2-6; 6: 12-13, 15). Baptism has taken the place ofcircumcision as the initiatory rite into the covenant. It was Christ whomade this substitution. He commissioned his disciples to go and evange-lize and baptize (Matt. 28:19). Just as circumcision was required of pros-elytes converting to Judaism, so baptism is required of those convertingto Christianity. It is their mark of entrance into the covenant. The tworites clearly have the same meaning. That circumcision pointed to acutting away of sin and a change of heart is seen in numerous OldTestament references to circumcision of the heart, that is, spiritual cir-cumcision as opposed to physical circumcision (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer.4:4; 925-26; Ezek. 44:7,9). Baptism is similarly pictured as a washing awayof sin. In Acts 2:38 Peter instructs his hearers, “Repent, and be baptizedevery one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your

14. Ibid., pp. 632-33.15. Ibid., p. 634.

The Initiatory Rite of the Church: Baptism 1095

sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” In 1 Peter 3:21 hewrites, “Baptism . . . now saves you.” Paul refers to “the washing of regen-eration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” (Titus 35) and also links baptismwith spiritual revival (Rom. 6:4). Conclusive evidence for the supplantingof circumcision by baptism is found in Colossians 2: 1 l-l 2: “In him alsoyou were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, byputting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you wereburied with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with himthrough faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.”Certainly this passage indicates that baptism now suffices as the sign ofthe covenant.

Two additional observations need to be made here. First, those whohold that baptism is essentially a sign and seal of the covenant claim thatit is not legitimate to impose upon a child the requirements incumbentupon an adult. Second, those who hold this view emphasize the objectiveaspect of the sacrament. What really matters is not one’s subjectivereaction, but one’s objective initiation into the covenant with its promiseof salvation.16

In the Reformed and Presbyterian approach to baptism, the mode isa relatively inconsequential consideration. The verb @a&[~ is ambigu-ous. What was important in New Testament times was the fact andresults of baptism, not the manner in which it was administered.17

There are indications that the means used in New Testament timeswas not, indeed, could not have been, exclusively immersion. For ex-ample, would John have been physically capable of immersing all thosewho came to him? Did the Philippian jailor leave his post in the prison togo where there was sufficient water for immersion? Was water broughtto Cornelius’s house in sufficient quantities for immersion? When Paulwas baptized, did he leave the place where Ananias found him? Theseare questions which suggest that immersion may not have been prac-ticed in every case.‘*

Moreover, immersion is not required for preservation of the symbol-ism of baptism. It is not primarily death and resurrection which arebeing set forth in the rite of baptism. Rather, the central concept depictedis purification. Any of the various Old Testament means of ablution-immersion, pouring, sprinkling-will picture purification. They are the&(Y@~OLS @rrr~apoi~ referred to in Hebrews 9:lO. In light of all of theseconsiderations, we are free to use whatever means is appropriate andavailable.19

16. Hodge, Systematic Theology, pp. 552-55.17. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 630.18. Ibid.19. Hodge, Systematic Theology, pp. 533-34.

1096 The Church

Baptism as a Token of Sah/ation

The third view we will examine sees baptism as a token, an outwardsymbol or indication of the inward change which has been effected inthe believer.20 It serves as a public testimony of one’s faith in Jesus Christ.It is an initiatory rite- we are baptized into the name of Christ.21

The act of baptism was commanded by Christ (Matt. 28:19-20). Sinceit was ordizined by him, it is properly understood as an ordinance ratherthan a sacrament. It does not produce any spiritual change in the onebaptized. We continue to practice baptism simply because Christ com-manded it and because it serves as a form of proclamation. It confirmsthe fact of one’s salvation to oneself and affirms it to others.

The act of baptism conveys no direct spiritual benefit or blessing. Inparticular, we are not regenerated through baptism, for baptism pre.sup-poses faith and the salvation to which faith leads. It is, then, a testimonythat one has already been regenerated. If there is a spiritual benefit, it isthe fact that baptism brings us into membership or participation in thelocal church.22

In the view of those who regard baptism as basically an outwardsymbol, the question of the proper subjects of baptism is of great impor-tance. Candidates for baptism will already have experienced the newbirth on the basis of faith. They will have exhibited credible evidence ofregeneration. While it is not the place of the church or the personadministering baptism to sit in judgment upon the candidate, there is anobligation to determine at least that the candidate understands themeaning of the ceremony. This can be determined by requiring thecandidate to give an oral testimony or answer certain questions. Prece-dent for such caution before administering baptism can be found in Johnthe Baptist’s words to the Pharisees and Sadducees who came to him forbaptism: ‘You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrathto come? Bear fruit that befits repentance” (Matt. 3:7-8)L3

The baptism of which we are speaking is believers’ baptism. Note thatthis is not necessarily add baptism. It is baptism of those who have metthe conditions for salvation (i.e., repentance and active faith). Evidencefor this position can be found in the New Testament. First, there is a

20. H. E. Dana, A Manual of Ecclesiology (Kansas City, Kans.: Central Seminary, 1944),pp. 281-82.

2 1. Edward T. Hiscox, The New Directory for Baptist Churches (Philadelphia: Judson,1894), p. 121.

22. Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Westwood, N.J.: Revell, 1907), p. 945.23. Ibid.

The Initiatory Rite of the Church: Baptism 1097

negative argument or an argument from silence. The only people whomthe New Testament specifically identifies by name as having been bap-tized were adults at the time of their baptism.24 The arguments that“there must surely have been children involved when whole householdswere baptized,” and “‘we cannot say for sure that no children werebaptized,” do not carry much weight with those who hold to believers’baptism; and, indeed, such arguments seem flimsy at best. Further, Scrip-ture makes it clear that personal, conscious faith in Christ is prerequisiteto baptism. In the Great Commission, the command to baptize followsthe command to disciple (Matt. 28:19). John the Baptist required repent-ance and confession of sin (Matt. 3:2,6). In the conclusion of his Pentecostsermon, Peter called for repentance, then baptism (Acts 2:37-41). Belieffollowed by baptism is the pattern in Acts 8:12; 18:8; and 19:1-7.25 Allthese considerations lead to the conclusion that responsible believers arethe only people who are to be baptized.

Regarding the mode of baptism, there is some variation. Certaingroups, particularly the Mennonites, practice believers’ baptism, but bymodes other than immersion.26 Probably the majority of those who holdto believers’ baptism utilize immersion exclusively, however, and aregenerally identified as Baptists. Where baptism is understood as a symboland testimony of the salvation which has occurred in the life of theindividual, it is not surprising that immersion is the predominant mode,since it best pictures the believer’s resurrection from spiritual death.27

Resolving the Issues

We now come to the issues which we raised at the beginning of thischapter. We must ask ourselves which of the positions we have sketchedis the most tenable in the light of all of the relevant evidence. Thequestion of the nature and meaning of baptism must precede all others.

The Meaning of Baptism

Is baptism a means of regeneration, an essential to salvation? A num-ber of texts seem to support such a position. On closer examination,

24. Ibid., p. 95 1.25. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, “Baptism, Believers’,” in Baker: Dictionary of Theology, ed.

Everett F. Harrison (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1960), p. 86.26. John C. Wenger, Introduction to Theology (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald, 1954), pp. 237-

40.27. Paul King Jewett, “Baptism (Baptist View),” in Encyclopedia of Christianity ed.

Edwin H. Palmer (Marshalltown, Del.: National Foundation for Christian Education, 1964),vol. 1, p. 520.

1098 The Church The Initiatory Rite of the Church: Baptism 1094,

however, the persuasiveness of this position becomes less telling. In Mark16: 16 we read, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved”; note,however, that the second half of the verse does not mention baptism atall: ‘but he who does not believe will be condemned.” It is simply absenceof belief, not of baptism, which is correlated with condemnation. Accord-ing to the canons of inductive logic, if a phenomenon (e.g., salvation)occurs on one occasion but not on another, the one circumstance inwhich they differ is the cause of the phenomenon. Thus, while Mark16: 16 is a forceful argument that belief is necessary for salvation, it is notso clear on the matter of baptism. An additional consideration is the factthat the entire verse (and indeed the whole passage, verses 9-20) is notfound in the best texts.

Another verse cited in support of the concept of baptismal regenera-tion, the idea that baptism is a means of saving grace, is John 35: “Unlessone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”But there is no clear indication that baptism is in view here. We must askwhat being “born of water” would have meant to Nicodemus, and ourconclusion, while not unequivocal, seems to favor the idea of cleansingor purification, not baptism .28 Note that the emphasis throughout thepassage is upon the Spirit and that there is no further reference to water.The key factor is the contrast between the supernatural (Spirit) and thenatura2 (flesh): “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which isborn of the Spirit is spirit” (v. 6). Jesus explains that to be born anew is tobe born of the Spirit. This working of the Spirit, like the blowing of thewind, is not fully comprehensible (w. 7-8). In view of the overall context,it appears that being born of water is synonymous with being born ofthe Spirit. The K& in verse 5, then, is an instance of the ascensive use ofthe conjunction, and the verse should be translated, “Unless a man isborn of water, even the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

A third passage which needs to be taken into account is 1 Peter 3:21:“Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal ofdirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience,through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Note that this verse is actuallya denial that the rite of baptism has any effect in itself. It saves only in

28. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971),pp. 2 15-16. An Anglican, Morris comments on the suggestion that Jesus is referring toChristian baptism: “The weak point is that Nicodemus could not possibly have perceivedan allusion to an as yet non-existent sacrament. It is d&cult to think that Jesus wouldhave spoken in such a way that His meaning could not possibly be grasped. His purposewas not to mystify but to enlighten. In any case the whole thrust of the passage is to putthe emphasis on the activity of the Spirit, not on any rite of the church.” See also D. W. B.Robinson, “Born of Water and Spirit: Does John 3:5 Refer to Baptism?” Reformed Theo-lo&xl Review 25, no. 1 (January-April 1966): 15-23.

that it is “an appeal to God,” an act of faith acknowledging dependenceupon him. The real basis of our salvation is Christ’s resurrection.

Then there are the passages in the Book of Acts where repentanceand baptism are linked together. Probably the most crucial is Peter’sresponse on Pentecost to the question, “Brethren, what shall we do?”(Acts 2:37). He replied, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in thename of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shallreceive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (v. 38). The emphasis in the remainderof the narrative, however, is that three thousand received his word-thenthey were baptized. In Peter’s next recorded sermon (3:17-26), the em-phasis is upon repentance, conversion, and acceptance of Christ; there isno mention of baptism. The key verse (v. 19, which is parallel to 2:38except for the significant fact that there is no command to be baptized)reads: “Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blottedout, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord.”The kerygma in chapter 4 centers upon the cruciality of belief in Jesus;once again there is no mention of baptism (w. 8-12). And when thePhilippian jailor asked, “What must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30), Paulanswered simply, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, youand your household” (v. 3 1). He did not mention baptism. (We should not,however, pass over the fact that the whole household was baptizedshortly thereafter.) While there is a close and important connectionbetween repentance and conversion on the one hand, and baptism onthe other, these passages in Acts seem to indicate that the connection isnot inseparable or absolute. Thus, unlike repentance and conversion,baptism is not indispensable to salvation. It seems, rather, that baptismmay be an expression or a consequence of conversion.

Finally, we must examine Titus 35. Here Paul writes that God “savedus, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of hisown mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the HolySpirit.” If this is an allusion to baptism, it is vague. It seems, rather, that“the washing of regeneration” refers to a cleansing and forgiveness ofsins. Baptism is simply a symbolic portrayal, not the means, of thisforgiveness. We conclude that there is little biblical evidence to supportthe idea that baptism is a means of regeneration or a channel of graceessential to salvation.

Moreover, certain specific difficulties attach to the concept of baptis-mal regeneration. When all the implications are spelled out, this conceptcontradicts the principle of salvation by grace, which is so clearly taughtin the New Testament. The insistence that baptism is necessary forsalvation is something of a parallel to the insistence of the Judaizers thatcircumcision was necessary for salvation, a contention which Paul vig-orously rejected in Galatians 51-12. Further, with the exception of the

II00 The Church The Initiatory Rite of the Church: Baptism 1101

. .

Great Commission, Jesus did not include the topic of baptism in hispreaching and teaching about the kingdom. Indeed, the thief on the crosswas not, and could not have been, baptized. Yet he was assured by Jesus,“Today you will be with me in Paradise.” It should also be noted that theattempts to reconcile the concept of baptismal regeneration with thebiblical principle of salvation by faith alone have’ proved inadequate.Neither the argument that infants who are baptized possess an uncon-scious faith nor the argument that the faith of the parents (or the church)avails is very forceful. On a variety of grounds, then, the view thatbaptism is a means of salvific grace is untenable.

What of the view that baptism is a continuation or a supplanting ofthe Old Testament rite of circumcision as a mark of one’s entrance intothe covenant? It is significant here that the New Testament tends todepreciate the external act of circumcision. It argues that circumcision.is to be replaced, not by another external act (e.g., baptism), but by aninternal act of the heart. Paul points out that Old Testament circumcisionwas an outward formality denoting Jewishness, but the true Jew is onewho is a Jew inwardly: “He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and realcircumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. His praiseis not from men but from God” (Rom. 2:29). Paul is asserting not merelythat circumcision has passed, but that the whole framework of whichcircumcision was a part has been replaced. Whereas Oscar Cul.lma~~~and others have argued vigorously that baptism is the New Testamentequivalent of circumcision, George Beasley-Murray has pointed out thatbaptism actually “did away with the need of circumcision because itsignified the union of the believer with Christ, and in union with Him theold nature was sloughed off. A lesser circumcision has been replaced bya greater; the spiritual circumcision promised under the old covenanthas become a reality under the new through baptism.“30 If anything hastaken the place of external circumcision, then, it is not baptism butinternal circumcision. Yet there is, as Paul suggests in Colossians 2:11-12,a close relationship between spiritual circumcision and baptism.

What, then, is the meaning of baptism? To answer this question, wenote, first, that there is a strong connection between baptism and ourbeing united with Christ in his death and resurrection. Paul emphasizesthis point in Romans 6: l-l 1. The use of the aorist tense suggests that atsome specific moment the believer actually becomes linked to Christ’sdeath and resurrection: “Do you not know that all of us who have beenbaptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried

29. Oscar Cullmann, Baptism in the New Testament (London: SCM, 1950), pp. 56-70.30. George R. Beasley-Murray, L3uptisrn in the New Testament (London: Macmillan,

1962), p. 3 IS.

therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raisedfrom the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newnessof life” (w. 3-4). We note, second, that the Book of Acts often ties beliefand baptism together. Baptism ordinarily follows upon or virtually coin-cides with belief. Paul at the time of his conversion was struck blind.When Ananias at God’s behest went to the house in the street calledStraight, spoke to Paul, and laid hands upon him, something like scalesfell from Paul’s eyes and he regained his sight. Then he rose, was baptized,and took food (Acts 9: 18-19). Many years later, in recounting this eventto a mob in Jerusalem, Paul quoted Ananias’s words to him: “And nowwhy do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, callingon his name” (Acts 22:16). Ananias’s words suggest that in baptism one iscalling upon the name of the Lord. Baptism is itself, then, an act of faithand commitment. While faith is possible without baptism (i.e., salvationdoes not depend upon one’s being baptized), baptism is a natural accom-paniment and the completion of faith.

Baptism is, then, an act of faith and a testimony that one has beenunited with Christ in his death and resurrection, that one has experiencedspiritual circumcision. It is a public indication of one’s commitment toChrist. Karl Barth makes a straightforward presentation of this point inthe very first words of his remarkable little book The Teaching of theChurch Regarding Baptism: “Christian baptism is in essence the repre-sentation [Abbild] of a man’s renewal through his participation by meansof the power of the Holy Spirit in the death and resurrection of JesusChrist, and therewith the representation of man’s association with Christ,with the covenant of grace which is concluded and realized in Him, andwith the fellowship of His Church.“3l

Baptism is a powerful form of proclamation. It is a setting forth of thetruth of what Christ has done; it is a “word in water” testifying to thebelievers participation in the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom.63-S). It is a symbol rather than merely a sign, for it is a graphic pictureof the truth it conveys. There is no inherent connection between a signand what it represents. It is only by convention, for example, that greentraffic lights tell us to go rather than to stop. By contrast, the sign at arailroad crossing is more than a sign; it is also a symbol, for it is a roughpicture of what it is intended to indicate, the crossing of a road and arailroad track. Baptism is a symbol, not a mere sign, for it actuallypictures the believer’s death and resurrection with Christ.

3 1. Karl Barth, The Teaching of the Church Regarding Baptism, trans. Ernest A. Payne(London: SCM, 1948), p. 9.

I IO.2 The Church

The Subjects of Baptism

We turn next to the question of the proper subjects of baptism. Theissue here is whether to hold to infant baptism or believers’ baptism (i.e.,the position that baptism should be restricted to those who have con-fessed faith in Christ’s atoning work). Note that our dichotomy is notbetween infant and adult baptism, for those who reject infant baptismstipulate that candidates for baptism must actually have exercised faith.We contend that believers’ baptism is the correct position.

One of the most significant considerations is the lack of any positiveNew Testament indication that infants were baptized. An impressiveadmission was made in Baptism and Confirmation TaSay, a report of theJoint Committees on Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Communion ofthe Church of England:

It is clear that the recipients of Baptism were normally adults and notinfants; and it must be admitted that there is no conclusive evidence inthe New Testament for the Baptism of infants. All we can say is that it ispossible that the “households” said to have been baptized rruty haveincluded children (Acts 16.15, 33; 1 Cor. 1.16). But at any rate it is clearthat the doctrine of Baptism in the New Testament is stated in relation tothe Baptism of adults, as was also the case (with two or three exceptions)in the writers of the first three centuries.. . . In every recorded case ofBaptism in the New Testament, the Gospel has been heard and accepted,and the condition of faith (and presumably of repentance) has beenconsciously fulfilled prior to the reception of the Sacrament.J*

A large number of New Testament scholars now concede this point. Theymake no assertion stronger than that it is possible that the baptisms ofwhole households included infants.

Some scholars take a more vigorous approach, however. Among themis Joachim Jeremias, who has argued that there must have been infantsin the households which were baptized. With regard to Acts 11:14 (see10:48); 16:15; 16:31-34; 18:8; and 1 Corinthians 1:16, he states, “In all fivecases the linguistic evidence forbids us to restrict the concept of the‘house’ to the adult members of the family. On the contrary it showsplainly that it is the complete farnib including all its members whichreceives baptism.“33 Beasley-Murray points out, however, that this line ofargument, while it seems reasonable, leads to conclusions beyond whatJcremias intends, for the households in question experienced more than

32. Bupti.srr~ crntl Confirmution T&uy (London: SCM, 1955), p. 34.33. .Joachim Jcremias, 71~ Origins of Infunt Baptbm: A Further Study in Reply to Kurt

Akur~d, I IYIIIS. Dorot hea M. Barton (London: SCM, 1965), p. 25.

The Initiatory Rite of the Church: Baptism 1103

baptism. Beasley-Murray maintains, for example, that “on Jeremias’ prin-ciple no doubt is to be entertained concerning the meaning of [Acts1044-481: all the house of Cornelius heard the word, all received theSpirit, all spoke with tongues, all were baptized; the infants present alsoheard the word, received the Spirit, spoke with tongues and so werebaptized. To this no exception is permissible!‘Q4 There is, of course,another interpretation of this passage and others like it. It is possible thatall of the members of these households met the conditions for baptism:they believed and repented. In that case, of course, all of the individualsinvolved had reached an age of understanding and responsibility.

Another argument used in support of infant baptism is that the chil-dren who were brought to Jesus that he might lay his hands on them(Matt. 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17) were actually beingbrought to be baptized. The Special Commission on Baptism of theChurch of Scotland contended in its 19.55 interim report that Jesus’expression “little ones who believe in me” (Matt. 18:6) signifies that theyhad been “baptized into Christ” (Gal. 3:27).35 The report further sought todemonstrate that Matthew 18:3; Mark 10: 15; and Luke 18: 17 are parallelto John 3:3 and 3:5, and that all have reference to baptism.36 This is anelaboration of Jeremias’s argument. Beasley-Murray comments on thissection of the report: “Some of that exegesis appears to me to be soimprobable, I cannot understand how a responsible body of mid-twen-tieth century theologians could permit it to be published in their name.“37

Both Jeremias and CL&XUKI see Mark 10~13-16 and the parallelpassages in terms of the Sitz im Leben, the situation of the early church.They believe that these narratives were included in the Gospels to justifythe church’s practice of infant baptism.38 While analysis and evaluationof this issue go beyond the scope of our treatise,39 it is important toobserve that the passages in question do not mention baptism. Surely, ifthe purpose of including them in the Gospels was to justify infant bap-tism, there would be an explicit reference to baptism somewhere in theimmediate context. When Jesus said that whoever would enter the king-dom of heaven must become like a child, he was making a point aboutthe necessity of simple trust, not about baptism.

Finally, we note that the case for baptism of infants rests upon either

34. Beasley-Murray, Baptism, p. 3 15.35. The Church of Scotland, “Interim Report of the Special Commission on Baptism,”

May 195.5, p. 23.36. Ibid., p. 25.37. Beasley-Murray, Baptbm, p. 311, n. 27.38. Joachim Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, trans. David Cairns

(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), p. 51; Cullmann, Baptkm, pp. 72-78.39. See Beasley-Murray, fkptism, pp. 322ff.

1104 The Church The Initiatory Rite of the Church: Baptism

the view that baptism is a means of saving grace or the view that baptism,like Old Testament circumcision, is a sign and seal of entrance into thecovenant. Since both of those views were found to be inadequate, wemust conclude that infant baptism is untenable. The meaning of baptismrequires us to hold to the position of believers’ baptism, as does the factthat the New Testament nowhere offers a clear case of an individualsbeing baptized before exercising faith.

The Mode of Baptism

It is not possible to resolve the issue of the proper mode of baptismon the basis of linguistic data. We should note, however, that the predomi-nant meaning of @~TT~&I is “to dip or to plunge under waterY40 EvenMartin Luther and John Calvin acknowledged immersion to be the basicmeaning of the term and the original form of baptism practiced by theearly church.41 There are several considerations which argue that im-mersion was the biblical procedure. John baptized at Aenon “becausethere was much water there” (John 3:23). When baptized by John, Jesus“came up out of the water” (Mark 1:lO). Upon hearing the good news,the Ethiopian eunuch said to Philip, “See, here is water! What is toprevent my being baptized?” (Acts 8:36). Then they both went down intothe water, Philip baptized him, and they came up out of the water (w. 38-39).

But is the fact that immersion was the mode originally employedmore than historically authoritative for us? That is, is it also normativelyauthoritative for us? There is no doubt that the procedure followed inNew Testament times was immersion. But does that mean we mustpractice immersion today? Or are there other possibilities? Those towhom the mode does not seem crucial maintain that there is no essentiallink between the meaning of baptism and the way in which it is admin-istered. But if, as we stated in our discussion of the meaning, baptism istruly a symbol, and not merely an arbitrary sign, we are not free tochange the mode.

In Romans 6:3-S Paul appears to be contending that there is a signifi-cant connection between how baptism is administered (one is loweredinto the water and then raised out of it) and what it symbolizes (death tosin and new life in Christ-and beyond that, baptism symbolizes the basisof the believer’s death to sin and new life: the death, burial, and resurrec-tion of Christ). Beasley-Murray says:

40. H~YII-y Gcorgc Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clar-cndon, I95 I ), vol. I, pp. 305-06.

4 I. Wlrtrt 1.1!/1zcr Suys, camp. Ewald M. Plass (St. Louis: Concordia, 1959), vol. 1, pp. 57-58; John Calvin, 1twtitlrtr.s of the Christian Religion, book 4, chapter 16, section 13.

1105

Despite the frequent denials of exegetes, it is surely reasonable to believethat the reason for Paul’s stating that the baptized is buried as dead,rather than that he died (as in v. 6), is the nature of baptism as immersion.The symbolism of immersion as representing burial is striking, and ifbaptism is at all to be compared with prophetic symbolism, the parallel-ism of act and event symbolized is not unimportant. Admittedly such astatement as that of C. H. Dodd, “Immersion is a sort of burial . . . emer-gence a sort of resurrection,“can be made only because the kerygma givesthis significance to baptism; its whole meaning is derived from Christ andHis redemption-it is the kerygma in action, and if the action suitablybodies forth the content of the kerygma, so much the clearer is its speech.But we repeat, the “with Him” of baptism is due to the gospel, not to themimesis. It is “to His death”: Christ and His dying, Christ and His risinggive the rite all its meaning. As one of the earliest of British Baptists putit, to be baptized is to be “dipped for dead in the water.“42

One might contend that Beasley-Murray, as a Baptist, is prejudiced onthis matter. The same cannot be said, however, of the Reformed scholarKarl Barth, who wrote:

The Greek word flcrrrri([w and the German word tuufen (from Tiefe, depth)originally and properly describe the process by which a man or an objectis completely immersed in water and then withdrawn from it again.Primitive baptism carried out in this manner had its mode, exactly likethe circumcision of the Old Testament, the character of a direct threat tolife, succeeded immediately by the corresponding deliverance and pres-ervation, the raising from baptism. One can hardly deny that baptismcarried out as immersion-as it was in the West until well on into theMiddle Ages-showed what was represented in far more expressive fash-ion than did the affusion which later became customary, especially whenthis affusion was reduced from a real wetting to a sprinkling and eventu-ally in practice to a mere moistening with as little water as possible. . . . Isthe last word on the matter to be, that facility of administration, health,and propriety are important reasons for doing otherwise [i.e., for admin-istering baptism in other than its original form]?43

In light of these considerations, immersionism seems the most adequateof the several positions. While it may not be the only valid form ofbaptism, it is the form which most fuuy preserves and accomplishes themeaning of baptism.

Whatever mode be adopted, baptism is not a matter to be taken lightly.It is of great importance, for it is both a sign of the believer’s union withChrist and, as a confession of that union, an additional act of faith whichserves to cement the more firmly that relationship.

42. Beasley-Murray, Baptism, p. 133.43. Barth, Teaching, pp. 9-10.

The Continuing Rite of the Church:The Lord’s Supper

Points of AgreementEstablishment by ChristThe Necessity of RepetitionA Form of ProclamationA Spiritual Benefit to the PartakerRestriction to Followers of ChristThe Horizontal Dimension

Points of DisagreementThe Presence of ChristThe Efficacy of the RiteThe Proper AdministratorThe Appropriate RecipientsThe Elements to Be Used

Major ViewsThe Traditional Roman Catholic ViewThe Lutheran ViewThe Reformed ViewThe Zwinglian View

Dealing with the IssuesThe Presence of ChristThe Efficacy of the RiteThe Proper AdministratorThe Appropriate RecipientsThe Elements to Be UsedThe Frequency of Observance

1107

I IO8 The Church The Continuing Rite of the Church: The Lord’s Supper

Establishment by Christ

W hde baptism is the initiatory rite, the Lords Supper is the contin-

For a long period of time, there was no question that Jesus himselfestablished the Lords Supper. It was simply assumed by all students ofthe New Testament that the rite goes back to him. The first to call thispoint seriously into question was H. E. G. Paulus in his commentary onthe New Testament (1800-l 804) and his life of Jesus (1828). David Strausslikewise denied it in the first edition of his life of Jesus (1835) butadmitted its possibility in the later popular edition (1864) when he ques-tioned merely the details.1 Some form critics in our time also dispute theauthenticity of Jesus’ statements establishing the Lord’s Supper. W. D.Davies, for example, speaks of “the precipitate of those words percolatedthrough the mind of a Rabbi.“2

uing rite of the visible church. It may be defined, in preliminary fashion,as a rite which Christ himself established for the church to practice as acommemoration of his death.

We immediately encounter a curious fact about the Lord’s Supper.Virtually every branch of Christianity practices it. It is a common factoruniting almost all segments of Christianity. Yet on the other hand, thereare many different interpretations. Historically, it has actually kept var-ious Christian groups apart. It has that effect at the present time as well.So it is at once a factor which unites and divides Christendom.

Philosophical presuppositions have played a large role in shaping themajor views of the Lords Supper. Some of these presuppositions reflectdebates and disputes which occurred in medieval times. In many cases,the philosophical positions underlying the presuppositions have beenaltered or even abandoned. And what is more, today there is far less ofan orientation to philosophical issues. Yet, curiously, the theological con-sequences of medieval philosophical issues linger on. Therefore, it will beimportant to isolate the presuppositions upon which the differing viewsof the Lord’s Supper rest.

In some cases the subject of the spiritual or practical value of theLord’s Supper has become lost in the dispute over theoretical issues. Thetheoretical questions are important (they affect the spiritual considera-tions), and so they ought not to be too quickly dismissed. If, however, webog down in the technical issues, and do not move on to deal with thepractical meaning, we will have missed the whole point of Christ’s havingestablished the Supper. It is not sufficient to comprehend what it means.We must also experience what it means.

Points of Agreement

It is well to begin our examination of the Lord’s Supper with thosematters on which the several traditions or denominational groups agree.It should be emphasized that these points of agreement are broad andhighly significant. When we have properly examined them, we will iden-tify the arcas of disagreement.

1109

For the most part, however, there is agreement that the establishmentof the Lords Supper goes back to Jesus himself. The evidence includesthe fact that the three Synoptic Gospels agree in attributing to him thewords inaugurating the practice (Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke22:19-20). Although there are some variations in the details, the commoncore in the Synoptics argues for an early inclusion in the oral tradition.3In addition, Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23-29 gives a similar account of theinstituting of the Lords Supper. He states that he received from the Lord(~~pc~&&~w) what he now passes on (~~cx~cu%%u~L) to his readers. WhilePaul does not state whether the facts in his letter were directly revealedto him by the Lord, or had been transmitted to him by others, the verbrrapcrha&vw suggests that the account had been passed on by others,and his giving it to the Corinthian church is a continuation of the processof transmission.4 Paul probably heard the account from eyewitnesses,that is, the apostles. In any event, Paul’s inclusion of the narrative indi-cates that the tradition existed several years before the writing of thefirst of the Gospels, which was likely Mark.5 We conclude that while wemay not be able to determine the precise words spoken by Jesus, we doknow that he instituted the practice which bears his name: the LordkSupper.

1. “Lord’s Supper,” in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge,ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1908), vol. 7, p. 24.

2. W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London: S.P.C.K., 1948), pp. 246-50 (thequote is from p. 249).

3. Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Je.su (New York: Macmillan, 1955),pp. 68-7 1.

4. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity, 198 l),p. 758.

5. Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, pp. 27-35.

1 I10 The Church The Continuing Rite of the Church: The Lord’s Supper 1111

The Necessity of Repetition

Some theologians maintain that Jesus himself established the Lord’sSupper, but did not issue a command to repeat it. This conclusion isbased upon the fact that Matthew and Mark do not include “Do this inremembrance of me” in their accounts.6 Some redaction critics assumethat Luke added this command, editing it into the text, although it wasnot in the tradition which he received. But absence from Matthew andMark does not prove that the command is not authentic. Luke may wellhave had independent sources. In any event, since Luke wrote under theinspiration of the Holy Spirit, his letter in its entirety is the Word of Godand, consequently, on this particular point is authoritative and bindingupon us. In addition, Paul’s account includes the command, “Do this inremembrance of me” (1 Cor. 11:24-25), and continues, “For as often asyou eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death untilhe comes” (v. 26). We must add to these considerations the practice ofthe church. Evidently believers celebrated the Lords Supper from a veryearly time. Certainly it was already being observed by the church at thetime of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (c. A.D. 55). This was easilywithin the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, who would have been a checkupon the authenticity of Paul’s report of Jesus’ words. It would seem,then, that the command to repeat the sacrament goes back to Jesus.

We also need to ask what the point of the Last Supper would havebeen had there been no command to repeat it. In that case, the breadand wine would have had significance only for the group that waspresent. The elements would have constituted some sort of private objectlesson for the Eleven. And the report of the Last Supper would have beenincorporated in the Gospels only for the sake of the historical record. Weknow, however, that by the time of the writing of Mark (c. A.D. 60-62)there was no longer a pressing need for a historical account of the LastSupper (unlike most of the other events of Jesus’ ministry). Paul’.. detailedhistorical and didactic account was already in circulation. That Markand the other Synoptists nevertheless saw fit to include a report of theLast Supper strongly suggests that they regarded it as substantially morethan a historical event. It is reasonable to infer that they included theLord’s Supper in their Gospels because Jesus intended it to be a continu-ing practice for future generations. In that case, the inclusion of theLord’s Supper in the narratives of Matthew and Mark is evidence thatthe rite is to be regularly repeated, even though those two writers recordno command to that effect.

6. Ibid., p. 1 10.

A Form of Proclamation

While there is a difference of opinion as to whether the bread andwine are more than mere emblems, there is a general agreement amongall communions that the Lord’s Supper is at least a representationalsetting forth of the fact and meaning of Christ’s death. Paul specificaUyindicated that the Lord’s Supper is a form of proclamation: “For as oftenas you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s deathuntil he comes” (1 Cor. 11:26). The act of taking the bread and the cup isa dramatization of the gospel, a graphic display of what Christ’s deathhas accomplished. It points backward to his death as the basis of oursalvation. More than that, however, it also declares a present truth-thevitalness of a proper frame of mind and heart. Communicants are toexamine themselves before eating the bread and drinking the cup; any-one who participates “without discerning the [Lord’s] body eats anddrinks judgment upon himself” (w. 28-29). To eat the bread or drink thecup of the Lord in an unworthy manner is to be guilty of sinning againstthe Lord’s body and blood (v. 27). While one might interpret Paul’s refer-ence to “discerning the body” (v. 29) as signifying that the church wasnot being properly recognized, the expression “the body and blood of theLord” (v. 27) is evidence that Paul was actually thinking of Jesus’ death.In addition to having a correct understanding of what Christ has accom-plished and a vital relationship with him, communicants must get alongwith one another. Paul noted with chagrin that there were divisionswithin the Corinthian church (v. 18). Some of the members in partakingof the elements were not really eating the Lord’s Supper (v. 20), for theysimply went ahead without waiting for the others (v. 21). Disregard forfellow Christians and for the church is a contradiction of the Lord’sSupper. So the Lord’s Supper is as much a symbol of the present vitalfellowship of believers with the Lord and with one another as it is asymbol of the past death of Jesus. It is also a proclamation of a futurefact; it looks forward to the Lord’s second coming. Paul wrote, “For asoften as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’sdeath until he come-s” (v. 26, italics added).

A Spiritual Benefit to the Partaker

All Christians who participate in the Lord’s Supper see it as conferringa spiritual benefit upon them. In this sense, all agree that the Lord’sSupper is sacramental. It ca.n be a means, or at least an occasion, ofspiritual growth in the Lord. There are different understandings of thenature of the benefit conferred by taking of the Lord’s Supper. Therealso are different understandings of the requisite conditions for receiving

I I I2 The Church The Continuing Rite of the Church: The Lord’s Supper

this spiritual benefit. All are in agreement, however, that we do not takethe elements merely because the Lord’s command obligates us to do so.Participation actually has a beneficial effect upon the communicant. Itleads or contributes to salvation or growth therein.

Restriction to Followers of Christ

All denominations are agreed that the Lord’s Supper is not to beadministered indiscriminately to all persons. It is in some fashion a tokenof the discipleship involved in the relationship between the individualbeliever and the Lord. Accordingly, it must not be administered to some-one who is not a disciple of the Lord.

sion. Even Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli, who agreed upon other

matters, including the efficacy and value of the rite, could not reach

agreement upon this point The issue pertains to whether, and in whatsense, the body and blood of Christ are actually present in the elementsemployed. That is, how literally are we to interpret the statements “Thisis my body” and “This is my blood”? Several answers have been given tothis question:

This restriction is based upon the fact that the Lord’s Supper wasoriginally administered to the inner circle of disciples. It was not sharedwith the crowds of persons who came to Jesus, some of whom weremerely curious or desirous of some personal benefit from him. Rather,the Last Supper was shared within the intimate gathering of those mostfully committed to Christ. Further, remember that the group had to bepurified. Judas, who was to betray Jesus, left the group apparently in themidst of the meal.

1. The bread and wine are the physical body and blood of Christ.’2. The bread and wine contain the physical body and blood.83. The bread and wine contain spiritdly the body and blood?4. They represent the body and blood.10

The Efficacy of the Rite

Restriction of the Lord’s Supper to believers is also borne out by Paul’sstatement about self-examination, which we noted earlier. It is necessaryfor a person to examine himself, so that he may eat and drink in a worthymanner. One must be not only a believer, but a practicing believer, totake of the elements. Anything less is sin (1 Cor. 11:27-34).

The Horizontal Dimension

The Lord’s Supper is, or represents, the Lord’s body. It is also for thebody, that is, the church. In 1 Corinthians 10: 15 17 Paul argues that sinceall partake of one loaf, which is Christ’s body, they are all one body. Thisis the background to Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 11:17-22. Formembers of the church to be divided into factions and to despise otherswho partake with them of the one loaf is an abuse and contradiction ofthe sacrament. The Lord’s Supper is an ordinance of the church. Itcannot be appropriately practiced by separate individuals in isolation. Itis the property of the functioning body of Christ.

What is the value of the Lord’s Supper? What does it actually accom-plish for (and in) the participants? One position is that it actually conveysgrace to the communicant. The rite has within it the power to effectspiritual changes that would not otherwise occur. A second position isthat the Lord’s Supper serves to bring the participants into contact withthe living Christ. He is present spiritually, and we benefit from thusencountering him. It is the encounter, however, not the rite itself, whichis the source of the benefit. The rite is merely an instrument to foster ourrelationship with him. It does not constitute the relationship nor conveythe attendant blessing. Yet a third option holds that the Lord’s Supperserves merely as a reminder of the truth that the Lord is present andavailable. Its potential for spiritual benefit is much the same as that of asermon. The content of a sermon may be believed and accepted; and, asa consequence, the individual will benefit spiritually. Or it may be disbe-lieved and rejected; in that case there will be no spiritual benefit Theeffect depends completely upon the response. It is quite possible topartake of the Lord’s Supper and be unaffected by the experience.

The Proper Administrator

Who may preside when the Lord’s Supper is observed? Is it necessaryto have a priest or minister? Is an ordained person a necessity for the riteto be valid? And if so, what constitutes proper ordination?

Points of Disagreement 7. Joseph Pohle, The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treattie, ed. Arthur Preuss (St. Louis:B. Herder, 1942), vol. 2, p. 25.

The Presence of Christ

Of the disputed matters regarding the Lord’s Supper, the nature ofChrist’s presence has probably been the most prominent point of discus-

8. Franz Pieper, Christian Dogmatics (St. Louis: Concordia, 1953), vol. 3, p. 345.9. Lewis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), pp. 653-54.

10. Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Westwood, N.J.: Revell, 1907), pp.538-43.

1113

1114 The ChurchI

The Continuing Rite of the Church: The Lord’s Supper 1115

We are dealing here with the issue of sacerdotalism, which is closelylinked to sacramentalism. Sacramentahsm is the doctrine that the sac-raments in and of themselves convey grace and can even accomplish theindividuals salvation. Sacerdotalism is the correlative doctrine that onlycertain persons are qualified to administer the sacraments. For example,in classic Roman Catholic dogma, only a Catholic priest ordained intothe apostolic succession can administer the Eucharist. If any other per-son should take the same physical elements and pronounce the samewords over them, they would remain bread and wine. Those who receivethe elements would be partaking not of the Eucharist, but simply a meal.

In some very nonliturgical Christian groups, there is no special limi-tation upon who may administer the Lords Supper. Any Christian whopossesses the spiritual qualifications for partaking of the Lord’s Suppermay also administer it. If a lay person follows the established form andhas the proper intention, the sacrament is valid.

A subsidiary issue here is the relative emphases upon the church andthe clergy. Some fellowships which spell out precise qualifications for theadministrant nonetheless put greater emphasis on the church. The clergyis an institution of the church; the clergyman is simply its designatedrepresentative. Other fellowships lay greater stress upon the priesthoodper se and proper ordination into it. In their view, the priest actuallypossesses the power to effect what the Lord’s Supper accomplishes.

The Appropriate Recipients

We have noted that all churches require that those who partake of theLord’s Supper be Christians. There may be additional stipulations as well.Some groups insist that the participant have been properly baptized.Some local congregations distribute the elements only to their ownmembers. Others specify a minimum age. A particular state of spiritualreadiness is often required, at least tacitly or informally. Virtually allgroups deny the Lord’s Supper to people known to be living in serioussin. It may be necessary to go to confession or to fast before taking ofthe elements.

A specific issue of historical interest is whether the laity are properrecipients of both elements of the Lord’s Supper. One of Luther’s greatcriticisms of the Catholic church was that it withheld the cup from thelaity. They were permitted to take only the bread. The clergy took thecup on behalf of the laity. This practice constituted what Luther labeledone of the “Babylonian captivities” of the church.’ l

11. Martin Luther, The Babylonian Cuptivity of the Church, in Three Treatises (Phila-delphia: Muhlcnberg, 1943), pp. 127-36.

The Elements to Be Used

Finally, we turn to an issue which does not divide denominations fromone another as much as it causes disputes within intramural groups:Must the elements be the same as those used at the first observance ofthe Supper? Must the bread be unleavened, as was the case in thePassover meal? Or can we interpret Paul’s reference to “one loaf” (1 Cor.10: 17, NIV) as signifying that other breads are acceptable? Must we usewine, or will grape juice serve equally well? If wine, what alcoholiccontent would equal that in the wine used by Jesus and the disciples?And must there be one common cup, or will individual cups do equallywell? Is the congregation at liberty to make changes in the procedure forsanitary purposes? While these questions may seem relatively inconse-quential to some, they have at times been the basis of rather severedebate, even virtually rending congregations apart.

Sometimes this issue arises out of a desire for cross-cultural adapta-tion of the Christian message. May elements quite dissimilar from thoseoriginally used be employed if bread and wine are not available, or wouldnot carry the meaning which they conveyed to the people who lived inthe New Testament world? For example, might an Eskimo culture substi-tute water and fish for wine and bread?

Sometimes the issue arises from a desire for variety or novelty. Youngpeople may feel that they can put freshness into their religious experienceby varying the symbols. Would it be valid to substitute potato chips andcola when bread and wine or grape juice are available?

Major Views

The Traditional Roman Catholic View

The official Roman Catholic position on the Lord’s Supper was spelledout at the Council of Trent (15451563). While many Catholics, especiallyin Western countries, have now abandoned some of the features of thisview, it is still the basis of the faith of large numbers. Let us note its majortenets.

Transubstantiation is the doctrine that as the administering priestconsecrates the elements, an actual metaphysical change takes place.The substance of the bread and wine-what they actually are-ischanged into Christ’s flesh and blood respectively. Note that what ischanged is the substance, not the accidents. Thus the bread retains theshape, texture, and taste of bread. A chemical analysis would tell us that

1116 The Church The Continuing Rite of the Church: The Lord’s Supper

it is still bread. But what it essentially is has been changed.12 The wholeof Christ is fully present within each of the particles of the host.13 All whoparticipate in the Lord’s Supper, or the Holy Eucharist as it is termed,literally take the physical body and blood of Christ into themselves.

To modern persons who are not given to thinking in metaphysicalterms, transubstantiation seems strange, if not absurd. It is, however,based upon Aristotle’s distinction between substance and accidents,which was adopted by Thomas Aquinas and thus found its way into theofficial theology of the Roman Catholic Church. From that philosophicalperspective, transubstantiation makes perfectly good sense.

A second major tenet of the Catholic view is that the Lord’s Supperinvolves a sacrificial act. In the mass a real sacrifice is again offered byChrist in behalf of the worshipers. It is a sacrifice in the same sense aswas the crucifixion .14 It is to be understood as a propitiatory sacrificesatisfying the demands of God. It serves to atone for venial sins. Thesacrament of the Eucharist is greatly profaned, however, if someonebearing unforgiven mortal sins participates. Thus, one should seriouslyexamine oneself beforehand, just as Paul instructed his readers to do.

A third tenet of the Catholic view is sacerdotalism, the idea that aproperly ordained priest must be present to consecrate the host. Withoutsuch a priest to officiate, the elements remain merely bread and wine.When, however, a qualified clergyman follows the proper formula, theelements are completely and permanently changed into Christ’s bodyand blood. l5

The Lutheran View

The Lutheran view differs from the Roman Catholic view a.t manybut not all points. Luther did not reject in toto the traditional view. Incontrast to the Reformed churches and Zwingli, Luther retained theCatholic conception that Christ’s body and blood are physically presentin the elements. In his dialogue with Zwingli (the Mar-burg Colloquy),Luther is reputed to have repeatedly stressed the words “This is mybody.“18 He took the words of Jesus quite literally at this point. The bodyand blood are actually, not merely figuratively, present in the elements.

What Luther denied was the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.The molecules are not changed into flesh and blood; they remain breadand wine. But the body and blood of Christ are present “in, with, andunder” the bread and wine. It is not that the bread and wine havebecome Christ’s body and blood, but that we now have the body andblood in addition to the bread and wine. The body and blood are there,but not exclusively so, that is, not in a way which would exclude thepresence of the bread and wine. While some have used the term consub-stantiation to denote Luther’s concept that body and bread are concur-rently present, that blood and wine coexist, it was not Luther’s term.Thinking in terms of one substance interpenetrating another, he used asan analogy an iron bar which is heated in fire. The substance of the irondoes not cease to exist when the substance of fire interpenetrates it,heating it to a high temperature.19

In the traditional administration of the sacrament, the cup was with-held from the laity, being taken only by the clergy. The major reason wasthe danger that the blood might be spilt.16 For the blood of Jesus to betrampled underfoot would be a desecration. In addition, there were twoarguments to the effect that it is unnecessary for the laity to take thecup. First, the clergy act representatively for the laity; they take the cupon behalf of the people. Second, nothing would be gained by the laity’staking the cup. The sacrament is complete without it, for every particleof both the bread and wine contains fully the body, soul, and divinity ofChrist.‘7 .

Luther rejected other facets of the Catholic conception of the mass.In particular, he rejected the idea that the mass is a sacrifice. Since Christdied and atoned for sin once and for all, and since the believer is justifiedby faith on the basis of that one-time sacrifice, there is no need forrepeated sacrilices.20

Luther also rejected sacerdotalism. The presence of Christ’s body andblood is not a result of the priest’s actions. It is instead a consequence ofthe power of Jesus Christ. Whereas Catholicism holds that the bread andwine are transformed at the moment the priest pronounces the words,Lutheranism does not speculate as to when the body and blood firstappear. While a properly ordained minister ought to administer the

12. Pohle, Sacraments, pp. 103-27.13. Ibid., p. 99.14. Ibid., part 3.15. Ibid., pp. 256-60.16. Ibid., p. 252.17. Ibid., pp. 246-54.

18. Great Debates of the Reformation, ed. Donald J. Ziegler (New York: RandomHouse, 1969), pp. 75, 78, 80. An account of the continuation of the Reformed-Lutherandebate will be found in Mm-burg Revisited, ed. Paul C. Empie and James I. McCord(Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966).

19. Luther, Bubylonian Cuptiviv, p. 140.20. Ibid., pp. 161-68.

1117

Ill8 The Church

sacrament, the presence of the body and blood is not to be attributed tohim or to anything that he does.2r

Despite denials of various facets of the Catholic position, Luther in-sisted upon the concept of manducation. There is a real eating of Jesus’body. Luther interpreted “Take, eat; this is my body” (Matt. 26:26) literally.In his view these words do not have reference to some spiritual receptionof Christ or of his body, but to a real taking of Christ into our bodyF2Indeed, Jesus had said on another occasion: “Truly, truly, I say to you,unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you haveno life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life,and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, andmy blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my bloodabides in me, and I in him” (John 653-56). The plain sense of these wordsfits well with Jesus’ statement at the Last Supper. We must take thesestatements literally if we are to be faithful to the text and consistent inour interpretation.

What of the benefit of the sacrament? Here Luther’s statements arenot as clear as we might wish. He insists that by partaking of thesacrament one experiences a real benefit-forgiveness of sin and confir-mation of faith. This benefit is due, however, not to the elements in thesacrament, but to one’s reception of the Word by faim23 At this pointLuther sounds almost as if he regards the sacrament as simply a meansof proclamation to which one responds as to a sermon. If the sacramentis merely a form of proclamation, however, what is the point of thephysical presence of Christ’s body and blood? At other times Lutherappears to have held that the benefit comes from actually eating thebody of Christ. What is clear from Luther’s disparate statements is thathe certainly regarded the Lords Supper as a sacrament. By virtue oftaking the elements believers receive a spiritual benefit which theyotherwise would not experience. The Christian ought therefore to takeadvantage of the opportunity for grace afforded by the sacrament of theLords Supper.

The Reformed View

The third major view of the Lords Supper is the Calvinistic or Re-formed view. While the term Calvinism usually stirs up images of aspecific view of salvation and of God’s initiative in it, his choosing anddecreeing that certain persons shall believe and be saved, that is not what

2 1. Ibid., pp. 158-59.22. Ibid., pp. 129-32.23. Ibid., p. 147.

The Continuing Rite of the Church: The Lord’s Supper 1119

we have in mind here. Rather, we are referring to Calvin’s view of theLord’s Supper.

There is some disagreement as to just what the respective views ofCalvin and Zwingli were. In one interpretation, Calvin’s emphasis on thedynamic or influential presence of Christ is not far different from LU-

ther’s view.24 Zwingli, on the other hand, taught that Christ is merelyspiritually present. If this interpretation is correct, then it was Zwinglikview, not Calvin’s, which prevailed in Reformed circles. According to

another interpretation, Calvin held that Christ is spiritually present in theelements, and Zwingli maintained that the elements are mere symbols ofChrist; he is neither physically nor spiritually present.25 If this interpreta-tion of their respective positions is correct, it was Calvin’s view that wasaccepted by the Reformed churches. Whose view eventually became thestandard of the Reformed churches is not as important, however, as iswhat the Reformed position entails. And on that we can be quite clearTherefore, it is best to label the position we are discussing “Reformed”rather than “Calvinistic.”

The Reformed view holds that Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper,but not physically or bodily. Rather, his presence in the sacrament isspiritual or dynamic. Using the sun as an illustration, Calvin asserted thatChrist is present influentially. The sun remains in the heavens, yet itswarmth and light are present on earth. So the radiance of the Spiritconveys to us the communion of Christ’s flesh and bkK126 According toRomans 8:9-l 1, it is by the Spirit and only by the Spirit that Christ dwellsin us. The notion that we actually eat Christ’s body and drink his blood isabsurd. Rather, true communicants are spiritually nourished by partak-ing of the bread and the wine. The Holy Spirit brings them into closerconnection with the person of Christ, the living head of the church andthe source of spiritual vitality.

In the Reformed view, the elements of the sacrament are not arbitraryor separable from what they signify-the death of Christ, the value of hisdeath, the believer’s participation in the crucified Christ, and the union ofbelievers with one another.27 And while the elements signify or representthe body and blood of Christ, they do more than that. They also seal.Louis Berkhof suggests that the Lords Supper seals the love of Christ tobelievers, giving them the assurance that all the promises of the covenantand the riches of the gospel are theirs by a divine donation. In exchange

24. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), vol. 3, pp.626-3 1.

25. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), p. 646.26. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, book 4, chapter 17, section 12.27. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 650.

1120 The Church*

for a personal claim on and actual possession of all this wealth, believersexpress faith in Christ as Savior and pledge obedience to him as Lordand King.28

There is, then, a genuine objective benefit of the sacrament. It is notgenerated by the participant; rather, it is brought to the sacrament byChrist himself. By taking the elements the participant actually receivesanew and continually the vitality of Christ. This should not be thought ofas unique, however, in the sense that the participant experiences in thesacrament something experienced nowhere else. Indeed, even the OldTestament believers experienced something of the same nature. Calvinsays, “The water gushing from the rock in the desert was to the Israelitesa badge and sign of the sarrie thing that is figured to us in the Supper bytie.“29 Nor should the benefit of the Lord’s Supper be thought of asautomatic. The effect of the sacrament depends in large part upon thefaith and receptivity of the participant.

The Zwinglian View

The f5.na.l position we will examine is the view that the Lord’s Supperis merely a commemoration. This view is usually associated with Zwingli,although some would argue that Zwingli’s conception went further. It islikely that Zwingli embraced more than one stance on this matter, andthat he may have altered his position toward the end of his life. CharlesHodge maintains that there is very little difference between the views ofzwingli and Calvin.3O

What is prominent in Zwingli’s view is his strong emphasis upon therole of the sacrament in bringing to mind the death of Christ and itsefficacy in behalf of the believer. Thus, the Lord’s Supper is essentially acommemoration of Christ’s death.31 While Zwingli spoke of a spiritualpresence of Christ, some who in many respects adopted his position (e.g.,the Anabaptists) denied the concept of a physical or bodily presence soenergetically as to leave little room for any type of special presence. Theypointed out that Jesus is spiritually present everywhere. His presence inthe elements is no more intense than his presence elsewhere.

The value of the sacrament, according to this view, lies simply inreceiving by faith the benefits of Christ’s death. The Lord’s Supper is butone of the ways in which we can receive these benefits by faith, for theeffect of the Lord’s Supper is no different in nature from, say, that of a

28. Ibid., p. 65 1.29. Calvin, Institutes, book 4, chapter 17, sections 1, 5.30. Hedge, Systemutic Theolou, pp. 626-27.3 I. Ibid., pp. 627-28.

The Continuing Rite of the Church: The Lard’s Supper 1121

sermon. Both are types of proclamation. 32 The Lord’s Supper differs fromsermons only in that it involves a visible means of proclamation. In bothcases, as with all proclamation, there is the absolute essential of faith ifthere is to be any benefit. Christ is not present with the nonbelievingperson. We might say, then, that it is not so much that the sacramentbrings Christ to the communicant as that the believer’s faith brings Christto the sacrament.

Dealing with the Issues

The Presence of Christ

We must now come to grips with the issues which we posed earlier inthis chapter and seek to arrive at some resolution. The first issue is thequestion of Christ’s presence in the sacrament. Are the body and bloodof Christ somehow specially present, and if so, in what sense? The mostnatural and straightforward way to render Jesus’ words, “This is mybody,” and “This is my blood,” is to interpret them literally. Since it is ourgeneral practice to interpret Scripture literally, we must be prepared tooffer justification if we interpret these words in any other way. In thisparticular case it so happens that there are certain considerations whichdo in fact argue against literal interpretation.

First, if we take “This is my body” and “This is my blood” literally, anabsurdity results. If Jesus meant that the bread and wine were at thatmoment in the upper room actually his body and his blood, he wasasserting that his flesh and blood were in two places simultaneously,since his corporeal form was right there beside the elements. To believethat Jesus was in two places at once is something of a denial of theincarnation, which limited his physical human nature to one location.

Second, there are conceptual difficulties for those who declare thatChrist has been bodily present in the subsequent occurrences of theLord’s Supper. While the preceding paragraph introduced the problemof how Christ’s flesh and blood could have been in two places simultane-ously, here we face the problem of how two substances (e.g., flesh andbread) can be in the same place simultaneously (the Lutheran concep-tion) or of how a particular substance (e.g., blood) can exist without anyof its customary characteristics (the Catholic view). While those whohold to a physical presence offer explanations of their view, their casesrest upon a type of metaphysic which seems very strange to twentieth-century minds, and indeed appears to us to be untenable.

32. Strong, Systematic Theology, pp. 541-43.

I122 The Church

These difficulties in themselves are not enough to determine ourinterpretation. They do, however, suggest that Jesus’ words are not to betaken literally. We must now look for clues as to what Jesus actuallymeant when he said, “This is my body,” and “This is my blood.”

As Jesus spoke the words inaugurating the sacrament of the Lord’sSupper, he focused attention on the relationship between individualbelievers and their Lord. It is noteworthy that on many of the otheroccasions when he addressed this topic, he used metaphors to character-ize himself: ‘2 am the way, and the truth, and the life”; “I am the vine, youare the branches”; “I am the good shepherd”; “I am the bread of life.” Atthe Last Supper he used similar metaphors, reversing the subject andpredicate noun: “This Coread] is my body “; “This [wine] is my blood.” Inkeeping with the figurative language, we might render Jesus’ statements,“This represents [or signifies] my body,” and “This represents [or signifies]my blood.” This approach spares us from the type of difficulties incurredby the view that Christ is physically present in the elements.

But what of the idea that Christ is spiritually present? This view arosefrom two historical sources. One was the desire of certain theologians toretain something of the traditional belief in the presence of Christ evenas they sought to change it. Their approach to reformation of the faithleaned more toward retaining whatever is not explicitly rejected byScripture than toward starting from scratch, preserving only those tenetsof the faith which are explicitly taught in Scripture. Instead of totallyrejecting tradition and constructing a completely new understanding,they chose to modify the old belief. The other source of the view thatChrist is spiritually present was a disposition toward mysticism. Somebelievers, having felt a profound experience of encounter with Christ asthey observed the Lord’s Supper, concluded that Christ must have beenspiritually present. The doctrine served as an explanation of the experi-ence.

As we evaluate this view, it is important to remember that Jesuspromised to be with his disciples everywhere and through all time (Matt.28:20; John 1423; 154-7). So he is everywhere present, and yet he hasalso promised to be with us especially when we gather as believers (h4att.18:20). The Lord’s Supper, as an act of worship, is therefore a particularlyfruitful opportunity for meeting with him. It is likely that Christ’s specialpresence in the sacrament is influential rather than metaphysical innature. In this regard it is significant that Paul’s account of the Lord’sSupper says nothing about the presence of Christ. Instead, it simply says,“For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim theLord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor. 11:26). This verse suggests that therite is basically commemorative.

We need to be particularly careful to avoid the negativism which has

The Continuing Rite of the Church: The Lord’s Supper I123

sometimes characterized this view that the Lord’s Supper is essentially amemorial. Out of a zeal to avoid the conception that Jesus is present insome sort of magical way, certain Baptists among others have sometimesgone to such extremes as to give the impression that the one place whereJesus most assuredly is not to be found is the Lord’s Supper. This is whatone Baptist leader termed “the doctrine of the real absence” of JesusChrist.

How, then, should we regard the Lord’s Supper? We should lookforward to the Lord’s Supper as a time of relationship and communionwith Christ. We should come to each observance of it with the confidencethat we will therein meet with him, for he has promised to meet with us.We should think of the sacrament not so much in terms of Christ’spresence as in terms of his promise and the potential for a closer rela-tionship with him. We also need to be careful to avoid the neoorthodoxconception that for the true communicant the Lord’s Supper is a subjec-tive encounter with Christ. He is objectively present. The Spirit is capableof making him real in our experience and has promised to do so. TheL.orcls Supper, then, is a time when we are drawn close to Christ, andthus come to know him better and love him more.

The Efficacy of the Rite

What has been said about the presence of Christ has also intimated agreat deal about the nature of the benefit conferred by the Lord’s Supper.It should be apparent from Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 11:27-32that there is nothing automatic about this benefit. Many at Corinth whoparticipated in the Lord’s Supper, instead of being spiritually edified, hadbecome weak and iu; some had even died (v. 30). The value intended bythe Lord was not being realized in their cases. It is evident that the effectof the Lord’s Supper must be dependent upon or proportional to thefaith of the believer and his or her response to what is presented in therite. The Corinthians who became ill or died had not recognized orjudged correctly (&aK&O) the body of Christ. A correct understandingof the meaning of the Lord’s Supper and an appropriate response in faithare necessary for the rite to be effective.33

It is therefore important to review what the Lord’s Supper symbolizes.It is in particular a reminder of the death of Christ and its sacrificial andpropitiatory character as an offering to the Father in our behalf. It furthersymbolizes our dependence upon and vital connection with the Lord,and points forward to his second coming. In addition, it symbolizes the

33. G. H. Clayton, “Eucharist,” in Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, ed. James Has-tings (New York: Scribner, 1916), vol. 1, p. 374.

1 1 2 4 The Churcha

unity of believers within the church and their love and concern for eachother. The Lords Supper reflects the fact that the body is one body.

It is appropriate to explain the meaning of the Lords Supper at eachobservance. And there should also be a rigorous self-examination byeach participant. Every individual should carefully ascertain his or herown understanding and spiritual condition (1 Cor. 11:27-28). The LordsSupper will then be an occasion of recommitment of oneself to the Lord.

The Proper Administrator ,

Scripture gives very little guidance on the matter of who shouldadminister the Lords Suppen Except for the original celebration of thesacrament, when Jesus himself administered the elements, we are nottold who presided or what they did. Nor does Scripture stipulate anyspecial qualifications for those who lead or for those who assist in therite. For that matter, very little is said in the New Testament aboutordination.

What does appear in the Gospel accounts and in Paul’s discussion isthat the Lords Supper has been entrusted to, and is presumably to beadministered by, the church. It would therefore seem to be in order forthe persons who have been chosen and empowered by the church tosupervise and conduct its services of worship to superintend the LordsSupper as well. Thus, at least some of the duly chosen leaders of thechurch should assist in the observance of the sacrament; the pastorshould take the leading role. In the absence of such officers, otherswho meet the qualifications might serve in their place. In general, thosewho assist should meet the qualifications which Paul laid down fordeacons; those who lead should meet his set of qualifications for bishops(1 Tim. 3).

The Appropriate Recipients

Nowhere in Scripture do we find an extensive statement of prerequi-sites for receiving the Lord’s Supper. Those which we do have we inferfrom Paul’s discourse in 1 Corinthians 11 and from our understandingof the meaning of the sacrament. If the Lord’s Supper signifies, at leastin part, a spiritual relationship between the individual believer and theLord, then it follows that a personal relationship with God is a prerequi-site. In other words, those who participate should be genuine believers inChrist. And while no age qualifications can be spelled out in hard andfast fashion, the communicant should be mature enough to be able todiscern the body (1 Cor. 11:29).

We infer another prerequisite from the fact that there were some

The Continuing Rite of the Church: The Lord’s Supper 1125

people whose sin was so grave that Paul urged the church to removethem from the body (1 Cor. 51-S). Certainly, the church, to which theLord’s Supper has been committed, should, as a first step in discipline,withhold the bread and cup from one known to be living in flagrant sin.In other cases, however, since we do not know what the requirementsfor membership in the New Testament churches were, it is probably best,once we have explained what the sacrament means and on what basisone should partake, to leave the decision as to whether to participate tothe individuals themselves.

The Elements to Be Used

What elements we decide to use in celebrating the Lord’s Supper willdepend, at least in part, upon whether our chief concern is to duplicatethe original conditions as closely as possible or to capture the symbolismof the sacrament. If our chief concern is duplication, we will use theunleavened bread of the traditional Passover meal. If, however, ourconcern is the symbolism, we might use a loaf of leavened bread. Theoneness of the loaf would symbolize the unity of the church; breakingthe loaf would signify the breaking of Christ’s body. With respect to thecup, duplication of the original event would call for wine, probablydiluted with anywhere from one to twenty parts of water for every partof wine.j4 If, on the other hand, representation of the blood of Christ isthe primary consideration, then grape juice will suffice equally well.

Where the traditional elements are unavailable, substitutes whichretain the symbolism may be employed. Indeed, fish might well be amore suitable symbol than bread. The use of bizarre substitutes simplyfor variety should be avoided. Potato chips and cola, for example, bearlittle resemblance to the original. A balance should be sought between,on the one hand, repeating the act with so little variation that we partic-ipate routinely without awareness of its meaning, and, on the other,changing the procedures so severely that we focus our attention uponthe mechanics instead of Christ’s atoning work.

What we are commemorating in the Lords Supper is not the precisecircumstances of its initiation, but what it represented to Jesus and thedisciples in the upper room. That being the case, suitability to convey themeaning, not similarity to the original circumstances, is what is impor-tant as far as the elements are concerned. A similar consideration holdswith respect to the time of observance. To celebrate the sacrament onMaundy Thursday rather than Good Friday may be more an attempt toduplicate the Last Supper than a commemoration of the Lord’s death.

34. Robert H. Stein, “Wine-Drinking in New Testament Times,” C’hristianify T&q, 20June 1975, pp. 9-l 1 (923-25).

1126 The Church

As to whether it is necessary to use one loaf of bread and one cup,there is some latitude. Paul does speak of the “one bread’ of which allpartake (1 Cor. 10: 17), but this does not necessarily dictate a whole loaf.There is no parallel statement about “one cup,” so the use of individualcups does not compromise the symbolism. Sanitary concerns may welllead the church to utilize individual containers rather than one commoncup. Moreover, in large gatherings this may be the only practical meansof celebrating the Supper.

The Frequency of Observance,

How often we should observe the Lord’s Supper is another matterconcerning which we have no explicit didactic statements in Scripture.We do not even have a precise indication of what the practice was in theearly church, although it may well have been weekly, that is, every timethe church assembled In view of the lack of specific information, we willmake our decision on the basis of biblical principles and practical consid-erations.

The tendency of our beliefs to slip from the conscious to the precon-scious level was one of the reasons Christ instituted the Lords Supper.Sigmund Freud recognized that the human personality has at least threelevels of awareness: the conscious (or, as Freud termed it, the perceptualconscious), the preconscious, and the unconscious. The conscious iswhat we are actually aware of at any given moment. In the unconsciouslie those experiences and ideas of ours which we cannot volitionallyrecall into consciousness (although some psychologists and psychiatristsclaim that no experience is ever lost; every idea can be brought back intoconsciousness through psychoanalysis, hypnosis, or certain types ofdrugs). The preconscious contains those experiences and ideas which,although one is not currently aware of them, can readily be recalled toconsciousness by an act of will. Most of our doctrinal beliefs hover atthis intermediate level. The Lords Supper has the effect of bringingpreconscious beliefs into consciousness. It should therefore be observedoften enough to prevent long gaps between times of reflection upon thetruths which it signifies, but not so frequently as to make it seem trivialor so commonplace that we go through the motions without reallythinking about the meaning. Perhaps it would be good for the church tomake the Lord’s Supper available on a frequent basis, allowing the indi-vidual believer to determine how often to partake. Knowing that we canpartake of the Lord’s Supper when we feel the need and desire, but thatwe are not required to participate at every available opportunity, willprevent the sacrament from becoming routinized.

Should it be as easy as possible for one to partake, or should it be

The Continuing Rite of the Church: The Lord’s Supper 1127

more difficult? There is something to be said for making the sacramentsufficiently unavailable as to require a definite intention and decision topartake. If the Lord’s Supper is appended to another worship service,many people will remain and participate simply because they happen tobe there. On the other hand, if the Lords Supper is a separate service, itsimportance will be highlighted. All the participants will have made aspecific decision to receive the elements and to concentrate on theirmeaning.

The Lords Supper, properly administered, is a means of inspiring thefaith and love of the believer as he or she reflects again upon the wonderof the Lords death and the fact that those who believe in him will liveeverlastingly.

And can it be that I should gainAn interest in the Savior’s blood?Died He for me, who caused His pain?For me, who Him to death pursued?Amazing love! how can it beThat Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?

(Charles Wesley, 1738)

The Unity of the Church

Arguments for Unity of the ChurchBiblical Teachings Regarding the Unity of BelieversGeneral Theological ConsiderationsPractical Considerations: A Common Witness and Efficiency

Conceptions of the Nature of UnitySpiritual UnityMutual Recognition and FellowshipConciliar UnityOrganic Unity

The History and Present Status of Ecumenism

Issues Raised by EvangelicalsThe Theological IssueThe Ecclesiological IssueThe Methodological IssueThe Teleological Issue

Guidelines for Action

A topic which has come up for discussion at various periodsin history is the unity of the church. The definition of church unity andthe degree of urgency in the discussion have varied throughout the

1129

I130 The Church The Unity of the Church

centuries. At times church unity has been a subject of considerablecontroversy. In the twentieth century, disagreements over the nature ofchurch unity have, ironically, caused a great deal of disunity. Yet the topicis such that it cannot be avoided.

Arguments for Unity of the Church

Biblical Teachings Regarding fhe Unity of Believers l

Among the reasons why the church must strive for unity are didacticpassages in the New Testament which specifically teach that the churchought to be, actually is, or will be one. Probably the most persuasive isthe so-called high-priestly prayer of Jesus: “I do not pray for these only,but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they mayall be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they alsomay be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. Theglory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may beone even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may becomeperfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me andhast loved them even as thou hast loved me” (John 17:20-23). It issignificant that, as our Lord strongly expresses concern for the welfareof his followers, he speaks of the unity between the Father and the Sonas a model for the unity of believers with one another. The unity ofbelievers with each other and with God will testify to the world the factthat the Father has sent the Son. Little is said about the nature of thisunity, however.

A second major passage is Paul’s exhortation in Ephesians 4. Afterbegging his readers to lead a life worthy of their calling (v. l), he urgesthem to be “eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond ofpeace” (v. 3). He follows up this appeal with a list of fundamentals whichunite believers: “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were calledto the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, onebaptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through alland in all” (w. 4-6). Since all believers confess the same body, Spirit,hope, Lord, faith, baptism, God and Father, they ought to display a unityof the Spirit. As Paul concludes his case, he urges his readers to grow upinto Christ, ‘from whom the whole body, joined and knit together byevery joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly,makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love” (v. 16). When the churchunites under Christ as its head, there is a maturing Christian experience.Yet as concerned as Paul is about building a unity of the Spirit, he doesnot really specify just what this unity consists in. Nor does he make it

1131

clear that this unity is to extend beyond the local church to which he iswriting. It is important for us to keep in mind here, however, that Ephe-sians was likely an encyclical letter. It was not restricted to one congre-gation of believers.’ Thus Paul’s appeal for unity undoubtedly circulatedover a large area.

Paul makes a somewhat similar appeal in Philippians 2:2, where heurges his readers to be “in full accord and of one mind.” The key todeveloping this attitude is humility and concern for others (w. 3-4). Andthe perfect model is the self-emptying action of Christ (w. 5-8). Followinghis example will lead to true unity among the members of the congre-gation.

General Theological Considerations

In addition to these specific teachings of Scripture, there are moregeneral theological considerations which argue for unity among believ-ers. These considerations include the oneness of ancient Israel and theoneness of God, on which Israel’s nationhood was based. Israel was to beone nation because the God she worshiped was one. That God is one ismost clearly expressed in passages like Deuteronomy 6:4. Because Godis one, the people of Israel were expected to worship him with all theirheart (v. 5). Moreover, because God is one, the universe is truly one. Allof it has been created by God, as Genesis 1 teaches; the entire world,being a unity, conforms to the will of its Creator. Since everything,including man, has a common origin and one Lord, it is altogether fitting,indeed it is imperative, that believers unite.2

The unity of Old Testament Israel is symbolized in two institutions, thetemple and the law. In Deuteronomy 12 it is made clear that all otherplaces and forms of worship are to be eliminated, because there is onlyone true God. The temple is the place of God’s abode; all the people ofIsrael are to center their worship therein. Similarly, the law is a unifyingfactor. All persons, regardless of their tribe and social class, are to obeyit.3

Various New Testament images make it clear that the church, as thesuccessor to Israel, is to follow her lead in manifesting unity. Like Israel,believers in Christ constitute one race, one nation: “you are a chosenrace, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people” (1 Peter 2:9).

1. Stig Hanson, The Unity of the Church in the New Testament: Colossians andEphesians (Lexington, KY.: American Theological Library Association, 1963). pp. 107-08.

2. Ibid., p. 7.3. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, The Unity and Disunity of the Church (Grand Rapids: Eerd-

mans, 1958), pp. 9- 10.

I I.32 The Church The Unity of the Church

But the New Testament goes beyond the concept of race, for there is avariety of peoples within the new community of God. The unity is moreintense; Paul refers to the church as a household: “So then you are nolonger strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with thesaints and members of the household of God” (Eph. 2:19). Here Paulintroduces the image of the temple to stress the idea of unity: “Built uponthe foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself beingthe cornerstone, . . . the whole structure is joined together and grows intoa holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwellingplace of God in the Spirit” (w. 20-22). Peter similarly speaks of ‘thechurch as a spiritual house: “And like living stones be yourselves builtinto a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrificesacceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5).4

The image of the church ZIS the bride of Christ likewise argues forunity among believers. From the very beginning, marriage was intendedto be monogamous: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his motherand cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). There isno suggestion here of anything other than one man and one woman.Jesus quotes this verse in arguing for the permanence of marriage (Matt.19:5), and Paul quotes it in a passage which compares the marital rela-tionship to the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph. 5:31). Ifthe church is the bride of Christ, it must be one body, not many.5

The image of the church as the body of Christ is another powerfulargument for unity. As Paul discusses the multiplicity of members andfunctions within the church, he says explicitly: “For just as the body isone and has many members, and all the members of the body, thoughmany, are one body, so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit we were allbaptized into one body-Jews or Greeks, slaves or free-and all weremade to drink of one Spirit” ( 1 Cor. 12: 12-13).

Paul’s most profound theological argumentation for the unity of be-lievers is probably to be found in Ephesians and Colossians. In Colossians1:13-23, a passage which begins on a soteriological note and thenswitches to God’s work of creation, Paul declares that Christ has createdall things (vv. 15-16) and in him all things hold together (v. 17). Thismeans that he is the head of the body, the church (v. 18). A climax isreached in verses 19-20: “For in him all the fulness of God was pleasedto dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether onearth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.” Christ’s aimis to reconcile all things to himself. AU things, including the church, willunite in him. Paul has this end in view when he pleads in 3:14-15: “And

113.3

above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfectharmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeedyou were called in the one body.“6

Unity of the church is a theme sounded throughout the Book ofEphesians. The first chapter concludes with the image of Christ as “thehead over all things for the church, which is his body” (Eph. 1:22-23). Inthe next chapter the emphasis is upon the unity of Jew and Gentile: “Forhe is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down thedividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of command-ments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man inplace of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to Godin one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end”(2:14-16). The chapter concludes with a passage we noted earlier-Jewand Gentile joined together into a holy temple in the Lord (vv. 20-22). Inchapter 4 Paul compiles a list of the grounds on which the church is tobe thought of as one (4:4-6). Stig Hanson comments on the passage:“One Body refers to the Church as the Body of Christ, the opinion ofmost expositors. This Body must be one since Christ is one, and Christcannot be divided.“’ Later in the chapter (w. 1 l- 14) Paul develops theidea of the ministry, which has the purpose of building up the church inthe one faith (v. 5). This guarantees the unity initiated by the one Christ.

Practical Considerations: A Common Witness and Efficiency

There are also some practical considerations which argue for Chris-tian unity. One of them is the common witness which a closely knit groupcan present. We mentioned earlier that Jesus prayed for the unity ofbelievers so that their concerted testimony might influence the world(John 17:2 1). The early believers were characterized by a oneness ofpurpose, and they were highly effective in their testimony. Perhaps thereis a logical cause-and-effect relationship between the two: “Now thecompany of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no onesaid that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they hadeverything in common. And with great power the apostles gave theirtestimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace wasupon them all” (Acts 4:32-33).

The company of believers tends to grow when their witness is united,whereas there may well be a negative or canceling effect when theycompete with or even criticize one another. This truth is evident enoughin the United States, where quarrels within a denomination discourage

4. Ibid., pp. IO-I I5. Ibid., p. I I.

6. Hanson, Unity of the Church, pp. 109-l 1.7. Ibid., p. 152.

I I.34 The ChurchThe Unity of the Church II35

people from becoming associated with the Christian faith. The problemis aggravated, however, in non-Christian lands, where the native, con-fronted by a multiplicity of missionary efforts, must decide not onlywhether to become a Christian, but also what type of Christian to be-come: Presbyterian, Baptist, Lutheran, or whatever.8 In some cases, theremay even be representatives of two or more varieties of the same denom-ination. It would not be surprising if potential converts were to throw uptheir hands in dismay, unable to choose among options which appearbasically the same. Certainly the gospel witness is not reinforced by ,theexistence of competitive groups.

Another practical consideration is the matter of efficiency. Wherethere is a lack of unity among Christians, there is a great reduplicationof efforts. Every local congregation feels that it must have certain struc-tural and procedural components, just as do every mission board andevery Christian college and seminary. The result is a great waste ofresources of the kingdom of God. Consider as an extreme example atown square in the Midwest. On each side of the square stands a churchbuilding. All four of the buildings are old, inefficient to heat, and in needof repair. The size and budget of all four congregations are modest. Thepastoral salaries are small. Consequently, the congregations are habitu-ally served by either young, inexperienced pastors or older men well pasttheir peaks. Mediocre programs in such areas as Christian education arethe norm. But what is most distressing is that the services, messages, andprograms of the four congregations are virtually the same! A visitorwould not find any significant difference among them.

An efficiency expert would regard this situation as a gross misuse ofresources. Instead of four small struggling churches, it would makebetter sense to merge them into one congregation. The four propertiescould be sold and the new congregation relocated to an efficient struc-ture. A staff of competent specialists could be engaged at appropriatecompensations, and missionary giving could be increased as a result ofthe reduced overhead. What we are advocating on the local level wouldbe highly desirable on broader levels as well. While some people mayregard this suggestion as an application of the General Motors mentalityto the work of the church, it is in fact a matter of practicing goodstewardship of the resources with which we Christians have been en-trusted.

8. Martin H. Cressy, “Organic Unity and Church Unions,” The Reformed World 35, no.3 (Scptcmbvr 197X): 103; Martin Marty, Church Unity und Church Mission (Grand Rapids:Eerdn1ans, I964), [‘p. 40-41.

Conceptions of the Nature of Unity

Despite the considerable amount of agreement about the deskabilityof unity, there is little agreement about its nature, the form which it is totake. There are basically four different ideas about unity. To some extentthey can be correlated with conceptions of the nature of the church. Thelist which follows moves from a view emphasizing the invisible church toa view emphasizing the visible church. In general, the greater the concen-tration upon the visible church, the greater will be the concern that unitybe manifested in actual organic union.

Spiritual Unity

The first view of church unity emphasizes that all Christians are oneby virtue of being committed to and serving the same Lord. They arejoined together in the invisible church, of which Christ is the head. Oneday there will be an actual gathering of this body in visible form. In themeantime, the unity of the church consists in the fact that there is nohostility among believers. All believers love other believers, even thosewith whom they have no actual contact or interaction. The existence ofseparate organizations of the visible church, even in the same area, doesnot constitute a challenge to this unity. Christians who regard churchunity as essentially spiritual in nature usually emphasize purity of doc-trinal belief and lifestyle as criteria for membership.9

Mutual Recognition and Fellowship

The second view involves more than a mere ideological acceptance ofunity. Unity is implemented on a practical level. Each congregation rec-ognizes others as legitimate parts of the family of God. Thus believerscan readily transfer their membership from one congregation to another.There may be pulpit exchanges as well, a practice which entails recogni-tion of ordination by other groups. In addition, members of differentchurches have fellowship with one another, and congregations with sim-ilar commitments and ideals work together when possible. For example,they may cooperate in conducting mass evangelistic crusades. Essen-tially, however, cooperation is on an ad hoc basis; it is not expressed inany form of official, permanent organization.‘O

9. J. Marcellus Kik, Ecumenbm and the Evangelical (Philadelphia: Presbyterian andReformed, 1958), pp. 48-53.

IO. James DeForest Murch, Cooper&m Without Compromise (Grand Rapids: Eerd-mans, 1956).

1136 The Church I The Unity of the Church 1137

Conciliar Unity

Yet there are occasions when churches do enter into organizationalalliance in order to accomplish their common purposes. They bandtogether into what is called a council or association of churches. This isessentially a cooperative fellowship of denominations, each of whichretains its own identity. It is a combined endeavor of, say, Methodists,Lutherans, and Episcopalians, all of whom continue their own uniquetraditions. There is emphasis upon both fellowship and action, since theunity is visible as well as spiritual.

Organic Unity

Finally, there is the view that church unity means the actual creationof one organization in which separate identities are surrendered. Mem-bership and ordination are joint. When denominations unite in this fash-ion, there is often a merging of local congregations as well. A primeexample is the United Church of Canada, a single denomination formedin 1925 by the uniting of Methodists, Presbyterians, and Congregational-ists. Another example is the Church of South India. In the early 1960sthe Consultation on Church Union (COCU) began to plan the merger ofseveral denominations into what they decided to call the Church of ChristUniting. The ultimate goal is the combination of all Christian churches,Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant, into one commonchurch. In practice the aim of the National Council of the Churches ofChrist has seemed to alternate between conciliar unity and organic unity.

It is important that we look more closely at conciliar and organicunity, since they are the areas where disagreement and controversy tendto occur. Before we do so, however, we must point out that the term“organic unity” is understood in several different ways:

1. The usual sense of “organic unity” is what we referred to above,namely, the merging of differing denominations. Here there is an agree-ment to allow diversity of practice or to base the union upon some lowestcommon denominator. We have noted that rather major mergers of thistype have occurred in Canada and India. More limited mergers whichhave taken place in the United States are those of the CongregationalChurch and the Evangelical and Reformed Church to form the UnitedChurch of Christ, and of the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Evan-gelical United Brethren to form the United Methodist Church.

2. “Organic unity” also has reference to the combining of fellowshipswhich arc basically of the same confessional standard. Here we have inmind, for example, the series of mergers which have taken place amongvarious Lutheran groups in the United States. Similar mergers have also

occurred among Reformed groups, notably the Presbyterians. Thosegroups which incline toward congregationalism and a more independentorientation, such as the Baptists, have shown less tendency to combineor, in cases of onetime union and subsequent separation, to recombine.

3. “Organic unity” relates not only to establishing unity, but to retain-ing or preserving it as well. We are here referring to the issue of whetherdissatisfied Christians remain within the denomination of which they area part or separate from it. This is an issue which frequently has facedconservatives within a denomination which has become predominantlyliberal. In a few cases, it is the less conservative element that must makesuch a decision. An example is the formation of Evangelical Lutherans inMission (ELIM) by members of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.On this particular level, “organic unity” may refer either to remainingwithin a denomination instead of separating or to separating from adenomination to form another group of basically similar tradition andliturgy (e.g., separating from one Baptist group to form another Baptistfellowship of churches).

4. Finally, “organic unity” may relate to a local congregation. Here werefer to the question of whether an individual or group remains within acongregation or separates from it. An individual can simply leave thefellowship; but if a group withdraws, it is a matter of actual schism. Morepeople face the issue of organic unity at this level than at any of theothers.

The History and Present Status of Ecumenism

Ecumenism can be traced back a long way. Indeed, one history ofecumenism traces it from 15 17 0nward.l 1 In a sense, however, the mod-ern ecumenical movement began in 19 10 as a cooperative missionaryendeavor. Kenneth Scott Latourette says, “The ecumenical movementwas in large part the outgrowth of the missionary movement.“12 For thehistorical background we look to the revivals which swept Europe andNorth America in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Participantsin those revivals found that they had a common theology and experiencewhich transcended denominational lines. Most important, they had acommon task and purpose which bound them together: world evangeli-

11. A History of the Ecumenical Movement, 1517-1948, ed. Ruth Rouse and StephenCharles Neill, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968).

12. Kenneth Scott Latourette, “Ecumenical Bearings of the Missionary Movementand the International Missionary Council,” in Ecumenical Movement, Q. 353.

1138 The Church The Unity of the Church

zation.13 The revival movements gave birth to a number of organizations:the Young Men’s Christian Association (1844), the Evangelical Alliance(1846), the Young Women’s Christian Association (1855), and the WorldsStudent Christian Association (1895). While these organizations were nottruly ecumenical in their own right, they “were later to provide favour-able ground for the propagation of ecumenical ideas.“14

Missionaries were the first to sense that the divisions among thechurches constituted an obstacle to the work of evangelization. Inter-national conferences for the advancement of missions were held, thosein London in 1878 and 1888 and in New York in 1900 being particularlysignificant. The last of these, in fact, was officially designated the Ecu-menical Missionary Conference. Attendance became progressively larger.The crucial event was the 19 10 World Missionary Conference in Edin-burgh, which is usually regarded as the beginning of the modern ecu-menical movement. The two major leaders were John R. Mott andJoseph H. 01dham.15 The purpose was to plan the next steps in evangeliz-ing the world.16

At one of the sessions a delegate from the Far East decried thedetrimental effect which denominational divisions among missionarieshad in his country. Neither his name nor his exact words have beenpreserved, but we do have a firsthand recollection of the substance ofhis remarks:

You have sent us your missionaries, who have introduced us to JesusChrist, and for that we are grateful. But you have also brought us yourdistinctions and divisions: some preach Methodism, others Lutheranism,Congregationalism or Episcopalianism. We ask you to preach the Gospelto us, and to let Jesus Christ himself raise from among our peoples, bythe action of his Holy Spirit, a Church conforming to his requirementsand also to the genius of our race. This Church will be the Church ofChrist in Japan, the Church of Christ in China, the Church of Christ inIndia; it will free us from all the ir;ms with which you colour the preachingof the Gospel among us.17

Maurice Villain reports that this speech had a powerful effect uponmany of the delegates. They determined to use “every possiblemeans . . . to remove this scandal[.] That day the ecumenical movement

13. Ibid.14. Maurice Villain, Unity: A History and Some Reflections, trans. J. R. Foster from the

3rd rev. ed. (Baltimore: Helicon, 1961).15. Latourette, “Ecumenical Bearings,” p. 356.16. Ibid., pp. 357-58.17. Villain, Unity, p. 29.

1139

was born”18 One of the delegates, Bishop Charles Brent of the ProtestantEpiscopal Church, in October 19 10 proposed to his denomination thecalling of a conference to study matters relating to “faith and order.”Other Christian groups from around the world would be invited to joinin this endeavor.19 Virtually simultaneously, similar action was beingtaken by two other American denominations, the Disciples of Christ andthe National Council of Congregational Churches.20 As a result, wide-spread support developed for a World Conference on Faith and Order?Before the conference could be held, however, the First World War brokeout.

When peace was restored, plans were resumed for the world confer-ence. It convened in Lausanne, Switzerland, in 1927. Two years earlier,Bishop Nathan Siiderblom of Sweden had convened in Stockholm aUniversal Christian Council for Life and Work. Although Siiderblom wasa pragmatist who attempted to dismiss questions of a doctrinal nature, itbecame evident that there had to be a clear understanding of the churchif there was to be cooperative endeavor22 In 1937, the Faith and Ordermovement met in Edinburgh and the Life and Work movement met inOxford. Out of those meetings came the establishment of a provisionalcommittee to unite the work of the two movements into what wouldcome to be called the World Council of Churches. Again, however, warinterrupted the plans. The actual formation of the World Council did nottake place until 1948 in Amsterdam, at which time 147 denominationalgroups became members.23 Later assemblies of the World Council ofChurches were held in Evanston, Illinois (1954), New Delhi (1961), Upp-sala (1968), Nairobi (1975), and Vancouver (1983).

The original statement of the theological basis of the World Councilwas brief and simple: “The World Council of Churches is a fellowship ofchurches which accept our Lord Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.“24 Thisstatement was criticized as not covering the full range of Christianbeliefs, and so in 1961 an expanded version was adopted: “The WorldCouncil of Churches is a fellowship of churches which confess theLord Jesus as God and Saviour according to the Scriptures and thereforeseek to fulfill together their common calling to the glory of the one God,

18. Ibid., 30.p.19. Tissington Tatlow, “The World Conference on Faith and Order,” Ecumenical Move-

ment, p. 407.20. Ibid., 407-08.pp.21. Ibid., 408-13.pp.22. Villain, Unity, 32.p.23. Norman Goodall, The Ecumenical Movement: What It Is and What It Does, 2nd ed.

(New York: Oxford University, 1964), pp. 63-68.24. Ibid., 68.p.

1 1 4 0 The Church I The Unity of the Church 1 1 4 1

Father, Son and Holy Spirit.“25 Also in 196 1, the International MissionaryCouncil, another movement spawned from the 1910 conference at Edin-burgh, merged with the World Council.*6 Another significant develop-ment was occurring at the same time. On Christmas Day 1961, PopeJohn XXIIl issued a call convoking the Second Vatican Council. The newopenness to non-Catholic Christianity displayed by this council was soonto make Protestant-Catholic dialogue a reality.

The World Council of Churches and its affiliate in the United States,the National Council of the Churches of Christ, are not the only inter-church movements of note. In 1941 the American Council of ChristianChurches was organized; its global equivalent, the International Councilof Christian Churches, was established somewhat later. On the surfacethese groups might appear to be conservative counterparts to the Na-tional and World Councils, attempting to achieve the same goals butfrom within a conservative theological framework. Upon closer scrutiny,however, it becomes obvious that the American and International Coun-cils exist for the purpose of opposing the aims and positions of theNational and World Co~ncil.s.*~

From the beginning the major moving force in the American Councilof Christian Churches has been Carl M&tire. He was a leader in theseparation of the Bible Presbyterians from the Orthodox PresbyterianChurch, the founding of Faith Theological Seminary, and the transfor-mation of the National Bible Institute into Shelton College. He has alsobeen the speaker on the “Twentieth Century Reformation Hour” radioprogram.

The activities of the American Council include lobbying in Washingtonconcerning government policy affecting the chaplaincy, foreign missions,and radio broadcasting.** It is opposition to the National and WorldCouncils, however, which constitutes the raison d’etre of this group. Oneof its tactics is to hold a simultaneous rally in the very city where theWorld Council or one of its agencies is meeting. McIntire’s book, Twn-tieth Century Reformation, is an extensive, vigorous, and pointed attackupon the liberalism of the ecumenical group. It is not only theologywhich is at stake, for matters of political and economic policy andpractice also come up for controversial discussion.

25. Ibid., p. 69.26. Norman Goodall, Ecumenical Progress: A Decade of Change in the Ecumenical

Mnvment, 1961-1971 (New York: Oxford University, 1972), p. 139.27. Carl McIntire, Twentieth Century Reformation, 2nd and rev. ed. (Collingswood,

N.J.: Christ ian Beacon, 1945).28. Paul Woolley, “American Council of Christian Churches,” in Twentieth Century

Erqdopctliu of Religious Knowledge, cd. Lefferts A. Loetscher (Grand Rapids: Baker,I955), vol. 1, p. 30.

The activities of the American Council and its member churches haveled to some very negative results. The tendency to schism which beganwhen the Bible Presbyterian Church and Faith Seminary came intoexistence as splits, respectively, from the Orthodox Presbyterian Churchand Westminster Seminary has continued. A case in point is the foundingof Covenant College and Setiary and the allied denomination.29 Fur-ther, the American Council has opposed not merely those of a liberalpersuasion, but also inconsistent evangelicals who, although thoroughlyorthodox, have not completely broken off ties with the National Council.Indeed, no voting member of the American Council may sustain anycdnnection with the National C0uncil.3~

One year after the origin of the American Council of ChristianChurches, yet another interchurch association came into existence. Agroup of evangel&& had in 1929 organized the New England Fellowship,which involved Bible conferences, camps, and radio broadcasting. Someof the leaders, having a vision of a nationwide fellowship, issued invita-tions to evangel&& across the country to attend a session in St. Louis inApril 1942. Out of this session came the National Association of Evangel-icals for United Action; the name was later shortened to National Associ-ation of Evangel&&?’

Two facts regarding the beginning of the National Association ofEvangelicals reflect its distinctive nature and purposes. First, the originalname points to its orientation to practical action; in this respect theassociation resembles the Edinburgh conference of 19 10. Second, theleaders of the evangelicals, having taken note of the formation of theAmerican Council the previous year, chose not to join because of itsnegative orientation. Instead, the primary aim of the new group wasconstructive cooperative action. We might call it an ecumenical actiongroup:

One thing became clear. Thousands had come to the conclusion that theycould no longer cooperate with the Federal [National] Council ofChurches. [But the evangel&&] were not interested in drawing up indict-ments and in spending their time in war-like strategy to reform or todestroy the Council. They believed that too much time and energy, moneyand talent had already been lost in such endeavors. They desired aconstructive, aggressive, dynamic, and unified program of evangelicalaction in the fields of evangelism, missions, Christian education and everyother sphere of Christian faith. They wanted a sound doctrinal basis for

29. Carl Henry, “The Perils of Independency,” Christianity Tday, 12 November 1956,p.21.

30. Woolley, “American Council,” p. 30.3 1. Murch, Cooperation, 48-6pp. 1.

II42 The Church

such action. They sought leadership in these realms. They believed thatthe time had c&me to demonstrate the validity of their faith and theability of evangelicals to work together and build together in a greatconstructive program.32

The National Association of Evangelicals functions through several com-missions. Its journal, Action (formerly United Evungelicul Action), givesexpression to the views of its members.

Issues Raised by Evangelicals

When ecumenism is discussed, several issues are of particular con-cern to evangel&&. Evangelicals have always insisted that fellowship isimpossible without agreement on certain basic truths. This insistencestems from belief in an objective God to whom humans relate in faith.We are able to relate to him because he has revealed himself to us. Sincethis revelation is at least partially in propositional form, faith is a matterof personal trust in God and acceptance of the truths he has revealed.Consequently, similar emotional experiences and cooperative endeavorsare insufficient foundations for union. There must also be agreementupon at least the most basic items of belief.

This position of evangel&& might be interpreted as a natural orlogical barrier to ecumenism. Actually, as John Warwick Montgomeryhas pointed out, it has functioned in the opposite way; it has encouragedinterdenominational activity. Because of their concern for truth, evangel-icals have been inclined to cooperate with and to feel themselves at onewith those who hold the same basic beliefs which they do.33 Indeed,fundamentalism began historically with a series of Bible conferencesattended by people who shared a set of distinctive beliefs termed “fun-damentals of the faith.” Many participants discovered that they had morein common theologically and spiritually with some Christians bearingdifferent denominational labels than they did with some members oftheir own denomination. Thus the very fact of doctrinal diversity withinthe larger denominations has been a stimulus to ecumenism.

Evangelicals have, however, in light of their concern for truth, beensomewhat cautious about the degree to which they are willing to engagein ecumenism. A number of issues perpetually arise when evangelicalsdiscuss ecumenism. William Estep has conveniently grouped them into

32. Ibid., p. 62.33. John Warwick Montgomery, Ecumenicity, Evangelicals, and Rome (Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 1969), p. 18.

The Unity of the Church 1143

categories. Although he wrote particularly from the perspective of Bap-tists and ecumenism, we will, with some adaptations, use his outlinehere.34

The Theological Issue

When one considers the various types of reservations which havebeen expressed regarding the ecumenical movement, theology is thefield which comes immediately to mind. For disagreement on theologicalmatters is what created separate denominations in the first place. Evan-gelicals will not consider union with any group which fails to subscribeto certain basic doctrines: the supreme authority of the Bible as thesource of faith and Christian practice; the deity of Jesus Christ, includinghis miracles, atoning death, and bodily resurrection; salvation as a super-natural work of regeneration and justification by grace through faith;the second coming of Christ. It appears to the evangelical that, withregard to the theological basis for fellowship, the ecumenical movementhas often settled for the lowest common denominator. As a result, theevangelical suspects that some of the members of the fellowship maynot be genuine Christians. There is also the question of what doctrinalstandards (i.e., confessions or creeds), if any, are to be followed, and whattheir status or authority is to be.35

The Ecclesiological Issue

In a sense, the ecclesiological issue is merely a subdivision of thetheological issue. Evangel&& will not consider union with groups thatdo not share their doctrine of the church. And yet, somewhat broaderquestions are also at stake here. Evangelicals insist that there be basicagreement on what makes a church a church. Indeed, does the churchmake Christians Christian, or do Christians make the church the church?Here in a sense we have the question of the very nature of Christianity.Then, too, there is the matter of the meaning of the term church Does itapply primarily to a local congregation of believers, to a denomination,or to a federation of denominations? There must also be a consensus onthe structure of church government and on the form and function of theministry. A merger of convinced Episcopalians and doctrinaire Congre-gationalists is not likely to be accomplished without some measure ofstrain regarding the organization and adrninistration of church govern-ment, the significance and criteria of ordination, and allied subjects.

34. William R. Step, lkptbts and Christian Unity (Nashville: Broadman, 1966), p. 170.35. Montgomery, Ecumenicity p, 17, n. 6; Step, lkptists, p. 170.

II44 The Church

<The Unity of the Church II45

Attention must also be given to such matters as the purpose and strategyof the church, the appropriateness and degree of social and politicalactivism, and the relationship between state and church.

It is significant that the areas we have just mentioned and relatedquestions concerning the sacraments are causing the ecumenical move-ment its most severe tensions and difficulties, just as they did in thesixteenth century, when Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli were unableto unite their wings of the Reformation, and negotiations broke downover the question of the nature of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper.The reason is readily apparent. With respect to other areas of belief, it ispossible to allow individuals to have their own private views. But thechurch and the sacraments are outward, observable components ofChristianity. Hence a greater degree of agreement is necessary concern-ing them. .

lems of our time? The debate continues and both partners in the conver-sation have to learn from each other.37

The Teleological Issue

The Methodological Issue

Since a major reason for founding the ecumenical movement was toovercome the drawbacks of a divided witness, there is real pertinence toa pragmatic question raised by evangelicals: Just how effective is theecumenical movement in carrying out the task of evangelizing the world?Harold Lindsell has pointed out that the United Church of Canada wascharacterized by declining membership and a reduction of missionariesat a time when other denominations were showing growth and progressin these areas.36

The final issue which evangelicals raise when they appraise ecumen-ism is what Estep calls the teleological issue.38 What is the ultimate goalof the ecumenical movement? Is it organic merger of all denominationsinto one super-church? The leaders of the World Council have repeatedlyand emphatically declared that this is not their goal; individual denomi-nations will persist and maintain their integrity. Nonetheless, Estep hascompiled an impressive list of statements by other leaders of the ecu-menical movement to the effect that organic union of all churches is tobe sought and attained. E. Roberts-Thomson distinguishes between thespecific function of the World Council and the ultimate goal of theecumenical movement. The Council itself is prohibited by its own consti-tution from becoming more than a council. It is expected, however, thatthe consciences of the members of the World Council will become sosensitized to the sin of separateness that they will seek a merger whichgoes beyond the activities of the C0uncil.3~

In light of the origin of the ecumenical movement, its failure in thearea of world missions is particularly sign&cant. Evangelicals have fre-quently criticized the World Council of Churches on this score. W. A.Visser ‘t Hooft, the first general secretary of the World Council, at-tempted to respond to the criticism:

Perhaps the most relevant question raised by the conservative Evangeli-cals has been whether the ecumenical movement has concentrated itsenergies too much on social and international problems and neglectedthe primary task of mission and evangelism. The question is all the morerelevant since a comparison between the W.C.C. Churches and the evan-gelical bodies shows that the latter are spending a much greater propor-tion of their resources of men and money on evangelism and foreignmissions. But the great question arises: What is evangelism? Is the Churchevangelistic only if it preaches the gospel to individuals? Or is it alsoevangelistic if it throws the light of the gospel on the great human prob-

Should a complete merger take place, certain unfortunate resultswould occur Church membership would become meaningless. RobertHandy has observed that “the drive for total organizational unity inevit-ably forces anew the question of who is a heretic. In the effort to escapethe harsher aspects of that question, while pressing for total organiza-tional unity, standards of membership would be lowered and the natureof the church would, in effect, be presented in minimal terms.“4o Anadditional problem with such a superchurch is that it would be regardedas the exclusive trustee, so to speak, of Christianity. Believers would bemade to feel that one cannot be a Christian outside of the visible church.But what then becomes of the dissenter or nonconformist? Where couldsuch a person go? A monolithic structure would preclude the system ofchecks and balances which is as necessary in the church as in secularpolitics.

37. W. A. Visser ‘t Hooft, “The General Ecumenical Development Since 1948,” in TheEcumenical Advance: A Hktory of the Ecumenical Movement, vol. 2, 1948-1968, ed.Harold E. Fey (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), p. 19.

38. Estep, Baptists, p. 185.39. E. Roberts-Thomson, With Hands Outstretched (London: Marshall, Morgan and

Scott, 1962) p. 39.36. Harold Lindsell, “What Are the Results? Ecumenical Merger and Mission,” Chris- 40. Robert Handy, “The Ecumenical Task Today,” Founa’ations 4, no. 2 (April 1961):

tiarzity Todq 30 March 1962, p. 5. 105-06.

1146

Guidelines for Action

The Church

In view of Christ’s prayer for the unity of his followers, what shouldour stance be? We conclude our chapter on church unity with severalguidelines.

1. We need to realize that the church of Jesus Christ is one church.All who are related to the one Savior and Lord are indeed part of thesame spiritual body (1 Cor. 12: 13).

2. The spiritual unity of believers should show itself or come to expres-sion in goodwill, fellowship, and love for one another. We should employevery legitimate way of affirming that we are one with Christians whoare organically separated from us.

3. Christians of all types should work together whenever possible. Ifno essential point of doctrine or practice is compromised, they shouldjoin forces. In other words, it is important that there be occasions onwhich Christians lay aside their differences. Cooperation among Chris-tians gives a common witness to the world and is faithful stewardship ofthe resources entrusted to us.

4. It is important to delineate carefully the doctrinal basis and objec-

PART -TWELVE

The Last Thingstives of fellowship. The original goal of the 1910 World Missionary Con-ference at Edinburgh has been, by Visser ‘t Hooft’s own admission,largely supplanted by other concerns. Yet the execution of Christ’s com-mission is still the major task of the church. Consequently, it is difficultto justify committing time, personnel, and finances to activities that donot contribute, at least indirectly, to evangelization. In other words, areturn to the original goals of the ecumenical movement should be ouraim, for not every one who says, “Lord, Lord,” is really one of his.

5. We must guard against any union that would sap the spiritualvitality of the church. It is conservative churches that are growing;evangel&& have the momentum. Alliances that would dilute their vital-ity must be very carefully evaluated and probably avoided.

55. Introduction to Eschatology

56. Individual Eschatology

57. The Second Coming and Its Consequents

58. Millennial and Tribulational Views

59. Final States

6. Christians should not be too quick to leave their parent denomina-tion. As long as there is a reasonable possibility of redeeming the denom-ination, the conservative witness should not be abandoned. For thatmatter, if conservatives withdraw from ecumenical circles, their positionwill not be represented therein.

7. It is imI&tant that Christians make sure that divisions and separa-tion are due to genuine convictions and principles, and not to personalityconflicts or individual ambition. It is a discredit to the cause of Christwhen Christians who hold the same beliefs and goals separate.

8. Where Christians do disagree, whether as individuals, churches, ordenominations, it is essential that they do so in a spirit of love, seeking tocorrect others and persuade them of the truth, rather than refute themor expose them to ridicule. Truth will ever be linked to love.

Introduction to Eschatology

The Status of Eschatology

The Classification of Eschatologies

Modern Treatments of EschatologyThe Liberal Approach: Modernized EschatologyAlbert Schweitzer: Demodernized EschatologyC. H. Dodd: Realized EschatologyRudolf Bultmann: Existentialized EschatologyJtirgen Moltmann: Politicized EschatologyDispensationalism: Systematized Eschatology

Conclusions Regarding Eschatology

The Status of Eschatology

As the derivation of the word indicates, eschatology has traditionallymeant the study of the last things. Accordingly, it has dealt with questionsconcerning the consummation of history, the completion of God’s workingin the world. In many cases it has also been literally the last thing in thestudy of theology, the last topic considered, the last chapter in the text-book.

Eschatology has had varying fortunes during the history of Christian-

1149

1150 The Last Things

ity. Because theology is usually defined and refined in response to chal-lenges and controversies, and the number of major debates overeschatology has been few, it has remained relatively undeveloped incomparison to such doctrines as the nature of the sacraments and theperson and work of Christ. These latter doctrines, being more central tothe Christian faith and experience, were extensively treated at an earlierpoint. James Or-r observed that as church history advanced, differentdoctrines predominated. The usual order of theological studies reflectsthe order in which the various doctrines attained prominence. Orr sug-gested that, in keeping with this sequence, eschatology would be thedominant matter on the modern theological agenda.1 Whether it hasbeen the supreme topic might be disputed, for in our century a greatamount of attention has been given to revelation and the work of theHoly Spirit. Yet it is certainly true that in the late nineteenth century andthroughout the twentieth century, eschatology has received closer ex-amination than it ever had before.

There are various conceptions of the relationship of eschatology toother doctrines. Some theologians have regarded it as merely an appen-dage to some other doctrine, the completion of another theological topicas it were. For instance, it has sometimes been considered as simply apart of the doctrine of salvation.2 When viewed as essentially a study ofthe final steps in Christ’s establishing his rule in the world, eschatologycompletes the doctrine of the work of Christ? It has also been attachedto the doctrine of the church; we think, for example, of Augustine’sdiscussion of the kingdom and the church.4 Other theologians havelooked upon eschatology as an independent doctrine on a par with theother major doctrines.5 Still other theologians have insisted that escha-tology is the supreme doctrine- it sums up all of the others and bringsthem to their fulfilment.6 Finally, a few have maintained that eschatologyis the whole of theology or, more correctly, that the whole of theology is

1. James Or-r, The Progress of Dogma (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952 reprint), pp. 20-30.

2. Theodore Haering, The Chrktian Faith: A System of Dogmatics (London: Hodderand Stoughton, 1913) vol. 2, pp. 829-924; Anthony Hoekema, The Bible and the Future(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) p. 297.

3. Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline fichatology (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University,1930) p. 36.

4. Augustine The City of God 20.6-10, especially 9.5. Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Westwood, N.J.: Revell, 1907), pp. 981-

1056.6. Joseph Pohle, Eschatology; or, The Catholic Doctrine of the Lust Things: A Dogmatic

Treutise (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1917), p. 1.

Introduction to Eschatology 1151

eschatology.7 There is, then, a wide range of views of the status ofeschatology; it is variously regarded as an appendage to other doctrines,one of the major doctrines, the supreme doctrine, and the whole oftheology.

There are a number of reasons for the current attention to eschatol-ogy. One is the rapid development of technology and consequent changesin our culture in general. To avoid obsolescence, it ,is necessary forcorporations and public agencies to predict and prepare for the future.This has given rise to a whole new discipline-“futurism.” Curiosity as towhat homes, transportation, and communication will be like in the nextdecade or the next century gives rise to speculation and then research.There is a corresponding interest in the future in a broader sense, acosmic sense. What does the future hold for the whole of reality?

A second major reason for the prominence of eschatology is the riseof the Third World. For those who live in the developed nations, the pastis rich with meaning. Indeed, in the minds of some, the best which lifewill ever offer lies buried in the past, and all current economic andpolitical trends are negative and discouraging. For the Third World na-tions, however, it is otherwise. The future holds great promise and poten-tial. As Christianity continues its rapid growth in the Third World nations,indeed, more rapid there than anywhere else, their excitement and antic-ipation regarding the future stimulate greater interest in eschatologythan in accomplished history.

Further, the strength of communism or dialectical materialism in ourworld has forced theologians to focus upon the future. Communism hasa definite philosophy of history. It sees history as marching on to anultimate goal. As the dialectic achieves its purposes, history keeps movingfrom one stage to the next. Ernst Bloch’s Das Prinzip Hoffnung (ThePrinciple of Ho~e),~ which represents Marxism as the world’s hope for abetter future, has had great impact on various Christian theologians.They have felt challenged to set forth an alternative, superior basis forhope.

Certain schools of psychology have also begun to emphasize hope.Perhaps the most notable example is Viktor Frankl’s logotherapy, a blendof existentialism and psychoanalysis. From his experiences in a concen-tration camp during World War II, Frankl concluded that humans needa purpose for living. One who has hope, who ‘knows the ‘why’ for his

7. Karl Barth says, “If Christianity be not altogether thoroughgoing eschatology, thereremains in it no relationship whatever with Christ”-Epistle to the Romans, 6th ed., trans.Edwyn C. Hoskyns (New York: Oxford University, 1968) p. 3 14.

8. Ernst Bloch, Du.s Prinzip Hoffnung (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1959).

1152 The Last Things

existence. . . will be able to bear almost any ‘how.’ “9 In a very real sense,the why, the purpose, of existence is related to the future, to what oneanticipates will occur.

Finally, the threat of destruction which hovers above the human racehas stirred inquiry regarding the future. The possibility of a nuclearholocaust is a dark cloud over the whole world. And while the effect ofthe ecological crises we face is less rapid than nuclear war would be,they, too, jeopardize the future of the race. These facts make it clear thatwe cannot live merely in the present, preoccupied with what is now. Wemust think of the future.

When we examine what theologians and ministers are doing witheschatology, we find two contrasting trends. On the one hand, there is anintensive preoccupation with eschatology. Theological conservatives haveshown great interest in the subject. Dispensational& in particular haveemphasized it in their preaching and teaching. One pastor is reported tohave preached on the Book of Revelation every Sunday evening fornineteen years! Sometimes the teaching is augmented by large detailedcharts of the last times. Current political and social events, especiallythose relating to the nation of Israel, are identified with prophecies in theScripture. As a result, some preachers have been caricatured as havingthe Bible in one hand and the daily newspaper in the other. Hal Lindsey’sLate Great Pihnet Earth is a noteworthy example of this type of “escha-tomania.“lO

There is another variety of eschatomania, very different in orientationand content. This is the approach which makes eschatology the whole oftheology.ll The Christian faith is regarded as so thoroughly eschatologi-cal that “eschatological” is attached as an adjective to virtually everytheological concept. Eschatology is seen “behind every bush” in the NewTestament. In the view of those who follow this approach, however, thecentral subject of eschatology is not the future, but the idea that a newage has begun. Often the tension between the old and the new is empha-sized; in fact, the phrase “already, but not yet” has become a sort ofslogan.

The opposite of the two varieties of eschatomania might be called“eschatophobia’‘-a fear of or aversion to eschatology, or at least anavoidance of discussing it. In some cases, eschatophobia is a reactionagainst those who have a definite interpretation of all prophetic materialin the Bible and identify every significant event in history with somebiblical prediction. Not wanting to be equated with this rather sensation-

9. Viktor Frankl, MunIs Seurch for Meuning (New York: Washington Square, 1963),p. 127.

IO. Hal Lindsey, 7‘1~~ Inrtr Greut Pkmet Eurth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971).I I. Jiitgcrt Molt tnattn, The Tlzeology of Hope (New York: Harper and Row, 1967).

Introduction to Ekchatology 1 1 5 3

alistic approach to eschatology, some preachers and teachers avoid dis-cussion of the subject altogether. As a result, in some conservative circlesthere is virtually no alternative to dispensationalism. Many lay persons,having heard no other view presented, have come to think of dispensa-tion&m as the only legitimate approach to eschatology. Moreover, insituations where a rather minor point of eschatology has been made atest of orthodoxy, younger pastors tend to avoid the subject entirely,hoping thus to avert suspicion. And in settings where discussing escha-tology has become an intramural sport, some pastors, hoping to avoiddivisiveness, make little or no mention of the millennium and the greattribulation. In this respect, eschatological topics are not greatly unlikeglossolalia,

Many of the issues of eschatology are obscure and difficult to dealwith. Consequently, some teachers and preachers simply avoid the sub-ject. Certain professors who teach courses in Christian doctrine alwaysfind themselves running behind schedule in their lecturing. Conse-quently, they never have time to deal with the millennium and the greattribulation. Similarly, professors of New Testament studies have difficultyfinding time for the Book of Revelation, and even some professors of OldTestament studies have difficulty budgeting their schedule to allow muchattention to the prophetical books. Perhaps this is just lack of organiza-tion and discipline, but more than one instructor has admitted that thelack of time is a convenience.

Somewhere between the two extremes of preoccupation with andavoidance of eschatology, we must take our stance. For eschatology isneither an unimportant and optional topic nor the sole subject of signifi-cance and interest to the Christian. We will find an appropriate mediatingposition if we keep in mind the true purpose of eschatology. At timeseschatology has become a topic of debate, resulting in accusations andacrimony among Christians. This is not the purpose for which eschato-logical truths were revealed by God. Paul indicates in 1 Thessalonians 4his reason for writing about the second coming. Some believers whoseloved ones had died were experiencing a grief which was, at least to adegree, unhealthy and unnecessary. Paul did not want them to sorrowlike unbelievers, who have no hope for their departed loved ones (v. 13).After describing the second coming and assuring his readers of its cer-tainty, he counsels, “Therefore comfort one another with these words”(v. 18). It is sometimes easy to forget that the eschatological truths inGod’s Word, like the rest of his revelation, are intended to comfort andassure us.

The Classification of Eschatologies

IThere is a series of questions which can be posed to help us classify

the various eschatological views held by Christians. In some cases, a

1154 The Last Things

single question will serve to classify the view being considered, since itwill be a key to the entire system. In other cases, several questions willhave to be asked if we are to fully comprehend the nature of the viewwith which we are dealing:

1. Is eschatology thought of as pertaining primarily to the future orthe present? Eschatology has traditionally been understood as dealingwith the end times, matters to transpire at some future point. Sometheologians, however, see eschatology as a description of events in thehere and now. We are in a new age and experience a new quality of life.Still others view eschatology as a description of what has always been, is,and always will be true. In other words, eschatology has a timelesscharacter.

At this point it will be helpful to note a system which is used to classifythe various interpretations of prophetic or apocalyptic material in Scrip-ture. While it is most often utilized as a means of classifying interpreta-tions of the Book of Revelationl* or, more generally, all such propheticliterature, the system can also be applied to distinguish views of escha-tology:

1.

2.

3.

4.

2.

The futuristic view holds that most of the events described are inthe future. They will come to fulfilment at the close of the age,many of them probably clustered together.The preterist view holds that the events described were taking placeat the time of the writer. Since they were current for the writer,they are now in the past.The historical view holds that the events described were in thefuture at the time of writing, but refer to matters destined to takeplace throughout the history of the church. Instead of looking solelyto the future for their occurrence, we should also search for themwithin the pages of history and consider whether some of themmay be coming to pass right now.The symbolic or idealist view holds that the events described arenot to be thought of in a time sequence at all. They refer to truthswhich are timeless in nature, not to singular historical occurrences.

Is the view of the future of life here on earth primarily optimistic orpessimistic? Some eschatologies anticipate an improvement in conditions.Others look for a general worsening of the circumstances of humanexistence. Many of them expect that, under human control, the situationwill deteriorate until God intervenes and rectifies what is occurring.

12. Merrill C. Tenney, The New Testument: An Historical and Analytic Survey (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1953), pp. 404-06.

Introduction to Eschatology 1155

3. Is divine activity or human effort thought to be the agent of escha-tological events? If divine activity, these events will be regarded as super-naturally realized; if human effort, they will be viewed as the result offamiliar and natural processes. The former perspective looks for genu-inely transcendent working by God; the latter stresses Gods immanentactivity in the world.

4. Is the focus of eschatological belief this-worldly or otherworldly? Inother words, is it expected that the promises of God will largely come topass upon this earth in a fundamental continuity with life as we nowexperience it, or is it expected that there will be a deliverance from thepresent scene and that his promises will be fulfilled in heaven or someplace or situation radically different from what we now experience?Eschatologies of the former type pursue more secular hopes; those ofthe latter type are more spiritual in nature.

5. Does the particular view speak of hope for the church alone or forthe human race in general? Do the benefits anticipated accrue only tothose who are believers, or are the promises to all? If the latter, is thechurch the agent or vehicle of the good things coming to all?

6. Does the eschatology hold that we will come into the benefits of thenew age individually, or that their bestowal will be cosmic in character?If the latter, it is likely that Gods promises will be fulfilled in one all-inclusive occurrence. Moreover, in that case the effects may not belimited to human beings, but may involve other segments of the creation;there may well be a transformation of the natural order.

7. Is there a special place for the Jewish people in the future occur-rences? As Gods chosen and covenant people in the Old Testament, dothey still have a unique status, 01human race?

are they simply like the rest of the

Modern Treatments of Eschatology

In many ways the history of eschatology has paralleled that of thedoctrine of the Holy Spirit. In both cases a formal position was workedout fairly early and became part of orthodoxy. In orthodox circles,consequently, eschatology and the Holy Spirit were only rarely of vitalinterest or major objects of concern. It was in the cults, or in radicalfringe groups, that these doctrines were taken very seriously and givendynamic and aggressive expression. While they were part of traditionalbelief, they were not the subject of much debate or preaching. In thetwentieth century, however, both doctrines have become matters ofmuch broader interest and concern.

II56 The Last Things I

The Liberal Approach: Modernized Eschatology

The nineteenth century was a time of considerable intellectual fer-ment, and Christian theology felt its force. The Darwinian theory ofevolution, the growth of natural sciences, and critical studies of the Bibleall contributed to a new mood. In theology, liberalism attempted to retainthe Christian faith while bringing the scientific approach to religiousmatters. There was confidence in the historical method as a means ofgaining understanding of what had actually occurred in biblical times.Application of this method to study of the Gospels came to be known asthe search for the historical Jesus. While there were variations in theconclusions, there were some general agreements. One was that Jesuswas basically a human teacher whose message was primarily about theheavenly Father. He was the first Christian. As some put it, Jesus calledus to believe with him rather than in him.

The message of Jesus was really quite simple, according to Adolf vonHarnack, whose thought represented the culmination of nineteenth-century liberalism. Jesus emphasized the fatherhood of God, who hascreated all humans and who watches over and protects them, as he doesall parts of his creation. The infinite value of a human soul was anothermajor teaching of Jesus. God has made man the highest object of his Icreation and his love, so we should love our fellow humans.13

The kingdom of God was still another basic topic of Jesus’ teaching.Whereas this kingdom had traditionally been understood as a futureearthly reign of Christ which would be established by his dramaticsecond coming, liberals stressed the present character of the kingdom.They pointed out that Jesus had said to his disciples, “Whenever youenter a town and they receive you, eat what is set before you; heal thesick in it and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you”’(Luke 10~8-9). The kingdom, then, is not something far removed, eitherspatially or temporally. It is something near, something into which hu-mans can enter. It is not something external imposed from without. It issimply the reign of God in human hearts wherever obedience to God isfound. The role of Christians is to spread this kingdom, which, accordingto Albrecht Ritschl, is a realm of righteousness and ethical values.14

In the view of liberals, Jesus also taught some rather strange ideas.One of these ideas was the second coming, the conception that he wouldreturn bodily at the end of the age to establish his kingdom. Liberalsfound this an untenable carryover from a prescientific way of under-

13. Adolf von Harnack, What Is Christianity? (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957),pp. 52-74.

14. Albrecht Ritschl, The Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliution (Edin-burgh: T. and T. Clark, 1900), pp. 3Off.

Introduction to Eschatology II57

standing reality. Yet they also believed that the conception contains animportant message. The teaching of the bodily second coming is merelythe husk within which is contained the true message, the kernel. Whatmust be done is to peel away the husk to get to the kernel.15 What isreally being proclaimed by the teaching of the second coming is thevictory of God’s righteousness over evil in the world. This is the kernel;the second advent is merely the husk or wrapping. We need not retainthe wrapping. Noone in his right mind eats the husk with the corn-atleast no human being does.

In the rejection of the idea of the second coming, we see the liberals’profound appreciation for the conclusions of modern learning, which,along with the historical method, was one of the basic components oftheir approach to the Bible. Prominent in the heyday of liberalism wasthe idea of progress. Advances were being made scientifically, politically,and economically. The Darwini an theory of evolution was being gener-alized to cover all of reality. Everything was seen as growing, developing,progressing. Not merely biological organisms, but human personality andinstitutions were supposedly advancing as well. The belief in the triumphof God over evil was blended with this doctrine of pro,gress. It waspresumed that a continuing Christianization of the social order, includingeconomics, would be the current exemplification of the real meaning ofthe second coming.

Albert Schweitzer: Demodernized Eschatology

Some theologians, however, were uneasy with the interpretations ofJesus which they found in the liberals’ writings. It was not merely conser-vatives who registered dissent; some who shared the liberals’ basic ap-proach to interpreting the Bible also objected. One of the first of thisgroup was Johannes Weiss. His Jesus’Procl&nation of the Kingdom ofG&proved to be a radical departure for those who applied the historicalmethod to the Gospels. Instead of assuming that the kingdom of whichJesus spoke is a present ethical kingdom, Weiss theorized that Jesus wasthoroughly eschatological, futuristic, and even apocalyptic in his outlook.According to Weiss, Jesus did not look for a gradual spread of thekingdom of God as an ethical rule in the hearts of men, but for a futurekingdom to be introduced by a dramatic action of God. This hypothesisappeared to Weiss to fit the data of Jesus’ life and teaching much betterthan did the conclusions of the standard lives of Jesus.16

15. Harnack, Whut 1s Christiunily? pp. 55-56.16. Johannes Weiss, Jcsu.s ‘~roc.lrllrcrtior3 of the Kingdom of God, ed. and trans. Richard

H. Hicrs arid David I,. Holland (Philadc+hia: Fortress, 197 I ).

11.58 The Last Things

What Weiss had begun, Albert Schweitzer completed. He was sharplycritical of the liberal interpretations and reconstructions of the life ofJesus. These half-historical, half-modern conceptions were the productof fruitful imaginations. He said of the liberal conception of Jesus as apreacher of an ethical kingdom: “He is a figure designed by rationalism,endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in anhistorical garb?’ Instead of a Jesus who had little to say about the future,Schweitzer found a Jesus whose thoughts and actions were permeatedby a radical, thoroughgoing eschatology. Schweitzer used the phrase“consistent eschatology.” A key factor in Jesus’ message was his futurecoming (Schweitzer preferred this term to “second conring”). Not onlywas this eschatological preaching basic and central to Jesus’ ministry; itwas also the original plan. While some theologians see the eschatologicalelement in Jesus’ teaching as an afterthought adopted when he failed toestablish an earthly kingdom, Schweitzer believed that a future heavenlykingdom was at the base of Jesus’ preaching even from the beginning ofhis first Galilean ministry.18

Jesus preached a future kingdom which would be radically super-natural, sudden in its coming, and discontinuous from human society aspreviously experienced. It would be introduced through a cosmic catas-trophe. One should prepare for it by repenting. This is what Jesus reallybelieved, according to Schweitzer; but, of course, Jesus was mistaken!Failing in his attempt to introduce his contemporaries to this cosmickingdom, Jesus was destroyed. He died a martyr’s death.19 It is this truehistorical Jesus, not the modern Jesus, that we are to follow. For Jesuscannot be made to fit our conceptions. He will reveal himself to thosewho obey his commands and perform the tasks he has set them.20 WhileSchweitzer did not specify just what this means or how this revelation isto take place, his mission work in Lamberene was evidently his personalattempt to fulfil Christ’s commands.

C. H. Dodd: Realized Eschatology

C. H. Dodd gave eschatology its next major reorientation. His escha-tology was similar to Schweitzer’s in one major respect but diametricallyopposed to it in another. In common with Schweitzer he held that

17. Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progressfrom Reirnarus to Wrede (New York: Macmillan, 1964), p. 396.

18. Albert Schweitzer, The Mystery of the Kingdom of God: The Secret of Jesus’Messiahship and Passion, trans. Walter Lowrie (London: Black, 1914), p. 87.

19. Schweitzer, Quest of the Htitorical Jesus, pp. 368-69.20. Ibid., p. 40 1.

Introduction to Eschatology 1159

eschatology is a major theme permeating Scripture, particularly Jesus’teachings. Unlike Schweitzer, however, Dodd insisted that the content ofJesus’ message was not a future coming and a future kingdom; rather,with the advent of Jesus the kingdom of God had already arrived. Intern-is of the four views of eschatology of which we spoke earlier, this isthe preterist approach.

In formulating his eschatology, Dodd pays particular attention to thebiblical references to the day of the Lord. He notes that whereas in theOld Testament the day of the Lord is viewed as a future matter, in theNew Testament it is depicted as a present occurrence. The mythologicalconcept of the day of the Lord has become a definite historical realityEschatology has been fulfilled or realized. Hence Dodd’s view has cometo be known as “realized eschatology.” Instead of looking ahead for futurefulfilments of prophecy, we should note the ways in which it has alreadybeen fulfilled. For example, the triumph of God was evident when Jesussaw Satan fall from heaven (Luke 10~18). With the coming of Christ, thejudgment has already taken place (John 3:19). Eternal life is already ourpossession (John 524). In Dodd’s mind, there is little doubt that the NewTestament writers saw the end times as having already come. In drawingthis conclusion, Dodd gives greater attention to Paul than do Schweitzeror the liberal lives of Jesus. Peter’s witness at Pentecost is also of signifi-cance: “But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: ‘And in the lastdays it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon allflesh”’ (Acts 2:16-17). There really is no need to look ahead for thefulfilment of prophecies like Joel’s. They have already been fulfilled.21

Rudolf Bultmann: Existentialized Eschatology

Still another approach to eschatology was put forward by RudolfBultmann. His handling of eschatology is simply part of his much largerprogram of demythologization. Because demythologization has beenexamined elsewhere in this treatise, we will not give a full-scale expositionhere. In short, Bultmann insisted that much of the New Testament is inthe form of mythology. The writers expressed their understanding of lifein terms which were common in New Testament times. What theyrecorded is not to be taken as an objective account of what actuallytranspired or as a literal explanation of the cosmos. If taken in thisfashion, the New Testament seems ludicrous. The ideas that Jesus as-cended into heaven, for example, and that diseases are caused by de-mons inhabiting humans are simply untenable as well as unnecessary.

2 1. C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Development (Chicago: Willett, Clark,1937), pp. 142-49.

I IhO The Last Things

Instead, we must understand that the New Testament writers used mythsdrawn from Gnosticism, Judaism, and other sources, to give expressionto what had happened to them existentially?2

Bultmann brought to his interpretation of the New Testament theexistentialism of Martin Heidegger. Since the message of the New Testa-ment is existential rather than historical (i.e., it does not tell us whatactually happened), does it not make good sense to interpret it by Usingexistential philosophy? Bultmann considers Heidegger’s thought to be asecularized, philosophical version of the New Testament view of humanexistence.23

Since the historical element in the New Testament does not tell usprimarily about specific occurrences but about the very nature of exis-tence, we must regard it as essentially timeless. The same is true ofeschatology. Just as biblical history does not tell us about literal eventswhich occurred in the past, eschatology does not refer to literal eventswhich will occur in the future. Paul in particular writes of currentexperience rather than future events. He thinks of salvation as bearingupon present existence: “If any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; theold has passed away, behold, the new has come” (2 Cor. 5: 17). Resurrec-tion, too, is a present experience: “Death is swallowed up in victory”(1 Cor. 1554). And from words spoken by Jesus the week of his crucifix-ion and recorded by John, we know that judgment is a present phenom-enon as well: “Now is the judgment of this world, now shall the ruler ofthis world be cast out” (John 12:3 1). John likewise reports words of Jesuswhich represent eternal life and resurrection as current experiencesrather than future events: “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; hewho does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God restsupon him” (John 3:36); “Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming, andnow is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and thosewho hear will live” (525). Bultmann comments, “For John the resurrec-tion of Jesus, Pentecost and the purousia of Jesus are one and the sameevent, and those who believe have already eternal life.“24 Even a purelyeschatological event like the coming of the spirit of antichrist is existen-tially true at all times: “And every spirit which does not confess Jesus isnot of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you have heard thatit was coming, and now it is in the world already” (1 John 4:3). The nextverse declares that the children of God have overcome these spirits.Eschatological realities like resurrection, eternal life, and the coming of

22. Rudolf Bultmann, Jts14.s Chrbt und Mythology (New York: Scribner, 1958), p. 33.23. Ibid., p. 45.24. Ibid., p. 33.

Introduction to Eschatology I161

the spirit of antichrist, then, do not depend upon whether a particularevent has yet transpired, for they are true in a timeless, existential sense.

Jiirgen Moltmann: Politicized Eschatology

The theology of hope considers eschatology not simply one part oftheology, or one doctrine of theology, but rather the whole of theology.To an unusual degree, the inspiration for this theology stems from thepersonal experiences of one man, Jtigen Moltmann. Moltmann was aprisoner of war in a British camp until 1948. He saw the collapse of hisnative Germany and all of its institutions. Like some other authors ofprison-camp memoirs, he noted that, as a general rule, the prisoners withhope had the best chance of survival. When he returned to Germanyand began to study theology, his views matured. In particular, exposureto the thought of the Marxist philosopher Ernst Bloch intensified hisinterest in the theme of hope. He could not understand why Christiantheology had allowed this theme, of which it was the rightful owner, toslip away.25 As atheistic Marxism picked up and exploited the theme ofhope, Christianity was becoming irrelevant. On the one hand, Christianityhad a God but no future, and on the other, Marxism had a future but noGod.26 Moltmann called Christians to remember the “God of Hope” whois witnessed to in both the Old Testament and the New Testament;reclaiming the theme of hope, they should “begin to assume responsibil-ity for the personal, social, and political problems of the present.“27

This quotation suggests the direction in which Moltmann’s subsequentthought has gone. He has called upon the church to mediate the presenceof Christ, who in turn will mediate the future of God. The Christian hopewill not be brought about simply by passive waiting, however. For “weare construction workers and not only interpreters of the future whosepower in hope! as well as in fulfillment is God. This means that Christianhope is a creative and militant hope in history. The horizon of eschatologi-cal expectation produces here a horizon of ethical intuitions which, inturn, gives meaning to the concrete historical initiatives.“28

Aiming at realization of the Christian hope, Moltmann has developeda political theology to transform the world. We are not to passively awaitthe arrival of the future, for what the future proves to be depends in

25. Jiirgen Moltmann, “Politics and the Practice of Hope,” Christian Century, 11 March1970, p. 288.

26. Ji.irgen Moltmann, “Hope and History,” Theology T+ 25, no. 3 (October 1968):370.

27. Ibid., p. 371.28. Ibid., p. 384.

1162 The Last Thlngs

large part upon our efforts. Yet the future will not be achieved primarilyby our work. It will be basically Gods doing. To attain that future (ourhope) requires action, not theological explanation. In contrast to earliertheologies, which attempted to deal with the problem of evil in the worldby offering a theodicy (a vindication of God’s justice), the theology ofhope, instead of asking why God does not do something about evil in theworld, acts to transform that evil So faith has become action, which inturn will help to bring about the object of that faith.

Dispensationalism: Systematized Eschatology

One additional school of eschatolog-y needs to be looked at, for al-though it is relatively new as orthodox theologies go, it has exerted aconsiderable influence within conservative circles. This is the movementwhich has come to be known as dispensationalism. Dispensationalism isa unified interpretive scheme. That is to say, each specific part or tenet isvitally interconnected with the others. Thus, when we speak of thesystematizing of eschatology, we have in mind not only that the datahave been organized to facilitate understanding, but also that conclu-sions in some areas automatically follow from tenets in others. Thedeveloper of dispensation&m was John Nelson Darby (1800-1882). Hewas the organizing force in the Plymouth Brethren movement as well.Dispensationalism was popularized through the Scofield Reference Bibleand through conferences on biblical prophecy which were led by pastorsand lay persons who had studied at Bible institutes where dispensation-alism was virtually the official position.29

Dispensational&s tend to think of their system as being, first andforemost, a method of interpreting Scripture. At its core is the convictionthat Scripture is to be interpreted literally. This does not mean thatobviously metaphorical passages are to be taken literally, but that if theplain meaning makes sense, one must not look further.30 Application ofthis principle leads to rejection of both allegorical interpretations and theliberal attempts to explain away the supernatural elements in Scripture,for example, the miracles. It also means that prophecy is interpreted veryliterally and often in considerable detail. Specifically, “Israel” is alwaysunderstood as a reference to national or ethnic Israel, not the church.Despite the stress on literal interpretation, however, there is also a tend-ency toward a typological understanding of some narrative and poeticalportions which at times approaches the old allegorizing method. An

29. Clarence B. Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism: Its Historical Genesis andEcclesiastical Implications (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960).

30. John Walvoord, “Dispensational Premillennialism,” Chtitzizni~ Today, 15 Septem-ber 1958, pp. 11-12.

Introduction to Eschatology 1163

example is the frequent explanation of the Song of Solomon as a pictureof Christ’s love for his church, in spite of the fact that the book saysnothing about either Christ or the church.

Dispensationalism finds in God’s Word evidence of a series of “dispen-sations” or economies under which he has managed the world. Thesedispensations are successive stages in Gods revelation of his purposes.They do not entail different means of salvation, for the means of salva-tion has been the same at all periods of time, namely, by grace throughfaith. There is some disagreement as to the number of dispensations, themost common number being seven. Thus, man was first in the dispen-sation of innocence. Then came the dispensations of conscience (fromthe fall to the flood), human government (from the flood to the call ofAbraham), promise, law, and grace. The seventh is yet to come. Manydispensational& emphasize that recognizing to what dispensation agiven passage of Scripture applies is crucial. We should not attempt togovern our lives by precepts laid down for the millennium, for example.31

Dispensational&s also put great stress on the distinction betweenIsrael and the church. Some of them, in fact, regard this distinction asfundamental to understanding Scripture and organizing eschatology. Intheir view, God made an unconditional covenant with Israel; that is tosay, his promises to them do not depend upon their fulfilling certainrequirements. They will remain his special people and ultimately receivehis blessing. Ethnic, national, political Israel is never to be confused withthe church, nor are the promises given to Israel to be regarded asapplying to and fulfilled in the church. They are two separate entities.j2God has, as it were, interrupted his special dealings with Israel, but willresume them at some point in the future. Unfulfilled prophecies regard-ing Israel will be fulfilled within the nation itself, not within the church.Indeed, the church is not mentioned in the Old Testament prophecies. Itis virtually a parenthesis within God’s overall plan of dealing with Israel.We must be careful, then, not to confuse the two divine kingdomsmentioned in Scripture. The kingdom of heaven is Jewish, Davidic, andmessianic. When it was rejected by national Israel during Jesus’ ministry,its appearance on earth was postponed. The kingdom of God, on theother hand, is more inclusive. It encompasses all moral intelligencesobedient to the will of God-the angels and the saints from every periodof time.33

3 1. Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Toa!ay (Chicago: Moody, 1965), pp. 86-90.32. Ibid., pp. 132-55.33. The Scofild Reference Bible, p. 996, n. 1; p. 1226, n. 3. Some later dispensationalists

maintain that the distinction between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God isnot essential. To them the issue is whether the Davidic theocratic kingdom is presenttoday in the form of the church or has simply been postponed. See Ryrie, LXspensation-alism T&q, pp. 170-74.

I I64 The Last Things

Finally, the millennium takes on a special significance in dispensation-alism. At that time God will resume his dealings with Israel, the churchhaving been taken out of the world or “raptured” some time earlier (justprior to the great tribulation). The millennium consequently will have amarkedly Jewish character. The unfuM.led prophecies regarding Israelwill come to pass at that time. Here we see the organic nature ofdispensationalism, the interconnectedness of its tenets. Proceeding onthe principle of literal interpretation, dispensationalists put great stresson the distinction between Israel and the church. All of the propheciesregarding Israel are interpreted as applying to the nation; and, in turn,the millennium is regarded as having a Jewish character.34

Conclusions Regarding Eschatology

1. Eschatology is a major topic in systematic theology. Consequently,we dare not neglect it as we construct our theology. On the other hand,it is but one doctrine among several, not the whole of theology. We mustnot convert our entire doctrinal system into eschatology, nor allow ourtheology to be distorted by an undue emphasis upon it.

2. The truths of eschatology deserve careful, intense, and thoroughattention and study. At the same time, we must guard against exploringthese matters merely out of curiosity. And when striving to understandthe meaning of difhcult and obscure portions of God’s Word, we mustalso avoid undue speculation and recognize that because the biblicalsources vary in clarity, our conclusions will vary in degree of certainty.

3. We need to recognize that eschatology does not pertain exclusivelyto the future. Jesus did introduce a new age, and the victory over thepowers of evil has already been won, even though the struggle is still tobe enacted in history.

4. We must pair with this insight the truth that there are elements ofpredictive prophecy, even within Jesus’ ministry, which simply cannot beregarded as already fulfilled. We must live with an openness to andanticipation of the future.

5. The biblical passages regarding eschatological events are far morethan existential descriptions of life. They do indeed have existential signif-icance, but that significance is dependent upon, and an application of,the factuality of the events described. They really will come to pass.

6. We as humans have a responsibility to play a part in bringing aboutthose eschatological events which are to transpire here upon earth andwithin history. Some see this responsibility in terms of evangelism; others

Introduction to Jkhatology 1165

see it in terms of social action. As we carry out our role, however, wemust also be mindful that eschatology pertains primarily to a new realmbeyond space and time, a new heaven and a new earth. This kingdomwill be ushered in by a supernatural work of God; it cannot be accom-plished by human efforts.

7. The truths of eschatology should arouse in us watchfulness andalertness in expectation of the future. But preparation for what is goingto happen will also entail diligence in the activities which our Lord hasassigned to us. We must not become impatient nor prematurely abandonour tasks. We should study the Scripture intensively and watch develop-ments in our world carefully, so that we may discern God’s working andnot be misled. We must not become so brash, however, as to dogmaticallyidentify specific historical occurrences with biblical prophecy or predictwhen certain eschatological events will take place.

8. As important as it is to have convictions regarding eschatologicalmatters, it is good to bear in mind that they vary in significance. It isessential to have agreement on such basic matters as the second comingof Christ and the life hereafter. On the other hand, holding to a specificposition on less central and less clearly expounded issues, such as themillennium or the tribulation, should not be made a test of orthodoxy ora condition of Christian fellowship and unity. Emphasis should be placedupon the points of agreement, not the points of disagreement.

9. When we study the doctrines of eschatology, we should stress theirspiritual significance and practical application. They are incentives topurity of life, diligence in service, and hope for the future. They are to beregarded as resources for ministering, not topics for debate.

34. Walvoo~d, “lhpensational Premillennialism,” p. 13.

1 5 60Individual Eschatology

DeathThe Reality of DeathThe Nature of DeathPhysical Death: Natural or Unnatural?The Effects of Death

The Intermediate StateThe Difficulty of the DoctrineCurrent Views of the Intermediate State

Soul SleepPurgatoryInstantaneous ResurrectionA Suggested Resolution

Implications of the Doctrines of Death and the Intermediate State

vvhen we speak of eschatology, we must distinguish betweenindividual eschatology and cosmic eschatology-those experienceswhich lie, on the one hand, in the future of the individual, and, on theother, in the future of the human race and indeed of the entire creation.The former will occur to each individual as he or she dies. The latter willoccur to all persons simultaneously in connection with cosmic events,specifically, the second coming of Christ.

1167

The Last Things

Death

An undeniable fact about the future of every person is the inevitabilityof death. There is a direct assertion of this fact in Hebrews 927: “It isappointed to men to die once, and after that comes judgment.” Thethought also runs through the whole of 1 Corinthians 15, where we readof the universality of death and the effect of Christ’s resurrection. Whiledeath is said to have been defeated and its sting removed by his resurrec-tion (vv. 54-56) there is no suggestion that we will not die. Paul certainlyanticipated his own death (2 Cor. 5:1-10; Phil. 1:19-26).

The Reality of Death

Death is one facet of eschatology that almost all theologians and allbelievers and indeed all persons in general recognize. The only exceptionwould seem to be the Christian Scientists, who question the reality bothof sickness and of death. Yet even this group, after initial denials, even-tually came to acknowledge that their founder, Mary Baker Eddy, haddied.’

Although everyone at least intellectually acknowledges the reality andthe certainty of death, there nonetheless is often an unwillingness to facethe inevitability of one’s own death. So we see within our society numer-ous attempts to avoid thinking of death. At funeral homes, many peoplepay their. formal respects and then seek to get as far away from thecasket as possible. The embalmers cosmetic art is highly developed, theaim apparently being to conceal the appearance of death. We employ awhole series of euphemisms to avoid acknowledging the reality of physi-cal death. Persons do not die-they expire or pass away. We no longerhave graveyards, but cemeteries and memorial parks. Even in the church,death is spoken of only during Passion Week and funerals. Many peoplehave not made a will, some probably because of procrastination, butothers because of an abhorrence of the thought of death.

What is death, however? How are we to define it? Various passages inScripture speak of physical death, that is, cessation of life in our physicalbody. In Matthew 10~28, for example, Jesus contrasts death of the bodywith death of both body and soul: ‘And do not fear those who kill thebody but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both souland body in hell.” The same idea appears in Luke 12:4-5: “I tell you, myfriends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have no morethat they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, afterhe has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear him!” Severalother passages speak of loss of the $vx’lj (“life”). An example is John13:37-38: “Peter said to him, ‘Lord, why cannot I follow you now? I willlay down my life for you.’ Jesus answered, ‘Will you lay down your lifefor me?“’ Other references of this type include Luke 6:9 and 14:26.Finally, death is referred to in Ecclesiastes 12:7 as separation of body andsoul (or spirit): “And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spiritreturns to God who gave it.” This passage is reminiscent of Genesis 2:7(man originated when God breathed the breath of life into dust from theground) and 3:19 (man shall return to dust). In the New Testament, James2:26 also speaks of death as separation of body and spirit: “For as thebody apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.”

To the existentialist, this unwillingness to come to grips with the realityof death is a prime example of “inauthentic existence.” Death is one of

What we are dealing with here is cessation of life in its familiar bodily

the harsh realities of life: every individual is going to grow old, die, bestate. This is not the end of existence, however. Life and death, according

taken to the cemetery and buried in the ground. That is our inevitableto Scripture, are not to be thought of as existence and nonexistence, butas two different states of existence.3 Death is simply a transition to a

end. I,ifc>, if it is to be lived properly, must include acceptance of the fact different mode of existence; it is not, as some tend to think, extinction.

Individual Fkchatology 1169

of death. Death is simply the end of the process, the final stage of life,and we must accept it.2

While disagreeing with the existentialist as to the meaning of death,the Christian agrees as to its reality and inescapability. Paul acknowledgesthat death is ever present in the world: “For while we live we are alwaysbeing given up to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus may bemanifested in our mortal flesh. So death is at work in us, but life in you”(2 Cor. 4~11-12). Death is not something that comes upon us suddenly. Itis the end of the process of decay of our mortal, corruptible bodies. Wereach our physical peak and then deterioration begins. In little ways wefind our strength ebbing from us, until finally the organism can no longerfunction.

The Nature of Death

2. Karl Jasper-s, The Way to Wisdom, trans. Ralph Manheim (New Haven, Corm.: YaleUniversity, 195 l), p. 53.

3. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theolou (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), p. 668.

I170 The Last Things.

In addition to physical death, Scripture speaks of spiritual and eternaldeath. Physical death is the separation of the soul from the body; spiritualdeath is the separation of the person from God; eternal death is thefinalizing of that state of separation-one is lost for all eternity in his orher sinful condition.4 Scripture clearly refers to a state of spiritual dead-ness, which is an inability to respond to spiritual matters or even a totalloss of sensitivity to such stimuli. This is what Paul has in mind inEphesians 2:1-2: ‘And you he made alive, when you were dead throughthe trespasses and sins in which you once walked.” When the Book ofRevelation refers to the “second death,” it is eternal death which is inview. An example is found in Revelation 21:8: “But as for the cowardly,the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idola-ters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire andbrimstone, which is the second death.” This second death is somethingseparate from and subsequent to normal physical death. We know fromRevelation 20:6 that the second death will not be experienced by believ-ers: “Blessed and holy is he who shares in the first resurrection! Oversuch the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God andof Christ, and they shall reign with him a thousand years.” The seconddeath is an endless period of punishment and of separation from thepresence of God, the finalization of the lost state of the individual who isspiritually dead at the time of physical death.

Physical Death: Natural or Unnatural?

There has been a great deal of debate as to whether man was bornmortal or immortal, whether he would have died had he not sinned.5 Itis our position that physical death was not an original part of man’scondition. But death was always there as a threat should man sin, thatis, eat of or touch the forbidden tree (Gen. 3:3). While the death whichwas threatened must have been at least in part spiritual death, it appearsthat physical death was also involved, since the man and woman had tobe driven out of the Garden of Eden lest they also eat of the tree of lifeand live forever (Gen. 3:22-23).

It must be admitted that some of the Scripture passages which havebeen offered as evidence that physical death is the result of man’s sinprove no such thing. A case in point is Ezekiel 18:4,20: “the soul that sinsshall die.” The reference here is to spiritual or eternal death, for the text

4. Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Westwood, N.J.: Revell, 1907), p. 982.5. E.g., Augustine, Anti-Pelagian Writings, in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-

Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. 5, ed. Philip Schaff (New York: Scribner,1902).

Individual Eschatology 1171

goes on to say that if the sinner turns from his wicked ways, he shall liveand not die (w. 21-22). Since both believer and unbeliever experiencephysical death, the reference here cannot be to physical death. The sameholds true of Romans 6:23: “For the wages of sin is death, but the freegift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” That it is eternal lifewhich is contrasted with death suggests that the result of sin in viewhere is eternal death, not physical death. In 1 Corinthians 15, however,Paul is clearly referring, at least in part, to physical death when he says,‘As by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection ofthe dead” (v. 2 1). For physical death is one of the evils countered andovercome by Christ’s resurrection. He was himself delivered from physi-cal death. This verse, then, is proof that physical death came from man’ssin; it was not part of God’s original intention for humankind.

Since physical death is a result of sin, it seems probable that man wascreated with the possibility of living forever. He was not inherently im-mortal, however; that is, he would not by virtue of his nature have livedon forever. Rather, if he had not sinned, he could have partaken of thetree of life and thus have received everlasting life. He was mortal in thesense of being able to die; and when he sinned, that potential or possibilitybecame a reality. We might say that he was created with contingentimmortality. He could have lived forever, but it was not certain that hewould. Upon sinning he lost that status.

Death, then, is not something natural to man. It is something foreignand hostile. Paul pictures it as an enemy (1 Cor. 15:26). And there is littledoubt that God himself sees death as an evil and a frustration of hisoriginal plan. God is himself the giver of life; those who thwart his planof life by shedding human blood must forfeit their own lives (Gen. 96).His sending death is an expression of his disapproval of human sin, ourfrustrating his intention for us. This was the case with the flood whichGod sent to do away with all flesh (Gen. 6:13), the destruction of Sodomand Gomorrah (Gen. 19), the punishment of Korah and those whorebelled with him (Num. 16), and the numerous other instances of thedeath penalty. In each case, those put to death had departed from God’sintention for them. Death was the unnatural consequence which theyhad to pay for their sin. The psalmist vividly depicts death as an expres-sion of God’s anger: “Thou dost sweep men away; they are like a dream,like grass which is renewed in the morning: in the morning it flourishesand is renewed; in the evening it fades and withers. For we are consumedby thy anger; by thy wrath we are overwhelmed” (Ps. 905-7). Yet God isalso compassionate. Jesus wept at the death of Lazarus (John 11:35), andon other occasions as well restored the dead to life.

The Last Things

For the unbeliever, death is a curse, a penalty, an enemy. For althoughdeath does not bring about extinction or the end of existence, it cuts oneoff from God and from any opportunity of obtaining eternal life. But forthose who believe in Christ and so are righteous, death has a differentcharacter. The believer still undergoes physical death, but its curse isgone. Because Christ himself became a curse for us by dying on thecross (Gal. 3:13), believers, although still subject to physical death, do notexperience its fearsome power, its curse. As Paul put it, “When theperishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality,then shall come to pass the saying that is written: ‘Death is swallowed upin victory.’ ‘0 death, where is thy victory? 0 death, where is thy sting?’The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be toGod, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Car.1.554-57).

Looking on death as indeed an enemy, the non-Christian sees nothingpositive in it and recoils from it in fear Paul, however, was able to takean entirely different attitude toward it. He saw death as a conqueredenemy, an erstwhile foe which now is forced to do the Lord’s will. SoPaul regarded death as desirable, for it would bring him into the presenceof his Lord. He wrote to the Philippians: “It is my eager expectation andhope that I shall not be at all ashamed, but that with full courage now asalways Christ will be honored in my body, whether by life or by death.For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. . . . My desire is to depart andbe with Christ, for that is far better” (Phil. 1:20-23). This was the Paulwho, as Saul of Tarsus, had heard dying Stephen exclaim that he couldsee heaven and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God (Acts756). Stephen had then prayed simply, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit”(v. 59) and “Lord, do not hold this sin against them” (v. 60). And Paul hadundoubtedly been told the tradition of the Lord himself, who had said atthe end of his life, “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!” (Luke23:46). For Paul, as for Stephen and Jesus, death was no longer an activeenemy, but a conquered enemy who now serves not to condemn anddestroy, but to Free us from the dreadful conditions which sin hasintroduced.

The believer can thus face the prospect of death with the knowledgethat its c+fects are not final, for death itself has been destroyed. Althoughthe final execution of this judgment upon death is yet in the future, thejudgment itself is already accomplished and assured. Even the Old Tes-tament c-ontained prophecies regarding the victory over death: “He willswallow up d<>ath for ever, and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears fromall ~‘xu, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the

Individual Eschatology 1173

earth; for the LORD has spoken” (Isa. 258); “Shall I ransom them from thepower of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from Death? 0 Death, where areyour plagues? 0 Sheol, where is your destruction? Compassion is hidfrom my eyes” (Hos. 13:14). In 1 Corinthians 15:55 Paul cites the latterpassage, and in Revelation 21:3-4 John picks up the former: “Behold, thedwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall behis people, and God himself will be with them; he will wipe away everytear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there bemourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things havepassed away.” In the previous chapter John has written, “Then Death andHades were thrown into the lake of fire” (Rev. 20: 14a). Passages such asthese make it clear that death has been defeated and will ultimately bedestroyed.

Here the question arises as to why the believer is still required toexperience death at all. If death, physical as well as spiritual and eternal,is the penalty for sin, then when we are delivered from sin and itsultimate consequence (eternal death), why should we not also be sparedfrom the symbol of that condemnation, namely, physical death? If Enochand Elijah were taken to be with the Lord without having to go throughdeath, why should not such translation be the experience of all whosefaith is placed in Christ? Is it not as if something of the curse for sin stillremains on those who have been forgiven of sin?

Some theologians have attempted to show that death has certainbeneficial results. One such attempt is that of Louis Berkhof.6 He arguesthat death is the culmination of the chastisements which God uses tosanctify his people. While acknowledging that death evidently is notindispensable to the accomplishment of sanctification, since Enoch andElijah did not die, Berkhof nonetheless sees it as a means by whichbelievers can identify with their Lord, who also went through sufferingsand death on the way to his glory. Death frequently calls forth frombelievers unusual degrees of faith. Yet while this is true in many cases,there are other instances in which death (or suffering, for that matter)does not appear to sanctify or evoke unusual faith. That greater degreesof sanctification and faith are realized by some Christians at the time ofdeath is hardly sufficient ground to justify the physical death of allbelievers. Berkhof’s effort therefore appears to be a somewhat strainedexplanation. A better approach is simply to consider death one of theconditions of humanity as now constituted; in this respect, death is likebirth.

It is necessary to distinguish here between the temporal and theeternal consequences of sin. We have noted that the eternal conse-

6. Rerkhof, Svstrndc Th~lo~v, pp. 670-7 1.

.,,, ‘ “_,“..” _,I_._.C_ -_.” i^l _--__..._ _..-i,=-.i--. “--

1 1 7 4 The Last Things

quences of our own individual sins are nullified when we are forgiven,but the temporal consequences, or at least some of them, may linger on.This is not a denial of the fact of justification, but merely an evidencethat God does not reverse the course of history. What is true of ourindividual sins is also true of God’s treatment of Adam’s sin or the sin ofthe race as well. All judgment upon and our guilt for original andindividual sin are removed, so that spiritual and eternal death are can-celed. We will not experience the second death. Nonetheless, we mustexperience physical death simply because it has become one of theconditions of human existence. It is now a part of life, as much so as arebirth, growth, and suffering, which also ultimately takes its origin fromsin. One day every consequence of sin will be removed, but that day isnot yet. The Bible, in its realism, does not deny the fact of universalphysical death, but insists that it has different significance for the believerand the unbeliever.

The Intermediate State

The Diffhdfy of the Doctrine

The doctrine of the intermediate state is an issue which is both verysignificant and yet also problematic. It therefore is doubly important thatwe examine carefully this somewhat strange doctrine. “Intermediatestate” refers to the condition of humans between their death and theresurrection. The question is, ‘What is the condition of the individualduring this period of time?

It is vital that we have practical answers to this question at the time ofbereavement. Many pastors and parents have been asked at a graveside,“Where is Grandma now? What is she doing? Is she with Jesus already?Are she and Grandpa back together? Does she know what we are doing?”These questions are not the product of idle speculation or curiosity; theyare of crucial importance to the individual posing them. An opportunityto offer comfort and encouragement is available to the Christian who isinformed on the matter. Unfortunately, many Christians do not seize thisopportunity because they do not know of a helpful reply. This has beenparticularly true in recent years. Confusion and uncertainty have beenthe lot of many a pastor who finds himself unable to answer and tominister to the questioner.

There are two major reasons why many Christians find themselvesunable to minister effectively to the bereaved. The first is the relativescarcity of biblical references to the intermediate state. This doctrine isnot the subject of any extended discourse in the way in which the

Individual Eschatology 1175

resurrection and the second coming are. Rather, it is treated somewhatincidentally. At least two explanations have been offered for the relativesilence. One is that the early church expected the period between Jesus’departure and his return to be relatively brief; thus the period betweenany human being’s death and resurrection would be relatively brief aswell.’ The other is that, whatever its length, the intermediate state ismerely temporary and, accordingly, did not concern the early believersas much as did the final states of heaven and hell.8 In view of therelatively little evidence upon which to construct the doctrine of theintermediate state, there is a tendency to think that the biblical writersdid not consider it to be very important. In one sense, of course, it is notessential or indispensable, since one’s salvation does not depend uponone’s convic,tion regarding the intermediate state. Nonetheless, like othernonessential issues, for example, the form of church government, thedoctrine of the intermediate state is, as we have already noted, of consid-erable practical importance.

The second reason why Christians fail to minister effectively to thebereaved is the theological controversy which has developed around thedoctrine of the interrnediate state. Prior to the twentieth century, ortho-doxy had a fairly consistent doctrine worked out. Believing in some sortof dualism of body and soul (or spirit) in the human person, the orthodoxmaintained that a part of the human survives death. Death consists inthe separation of the soul from the body. The immaterial soul lives on ina conscious personal existence while the body decomposes. At the secondcoming of Christ, there will be a resurrection of a renewed or trans-formed body which will be reunited with the soul. Thus, orthodoxy heldto both the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body?

Liberalism, however, rejected the idea of the resurrection of the body.Harry Emerson Fosdick, for example, regarded this doctrine as grosslymaterialistic. In addition, many liberals considered it to be mythologicaland scientifically impossible. It is preposterous to think that a body whichhas decomposed, and perhaps even been cremated, its ashes being scat-tered, can be brought back to life. The liberal who wished to maintainsome sort of continuing life after death replaced the idea of the resurrec-tion of the body with the immortality of the soul. Although the body maydie and decompose, the soul, being immortal, lives on. Since those who

7. C. Harris, “State of the Dead (Christian),” in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics,ed. James Hastings (New York: Scribner, 1955), vol. 10, p. 837.

8. Loraine Boettner, “The Intermediate State,” in Baker> Dictionary of Theology, ed.Everett F. Harrison (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1960), p. 291.

9. James Addison, Life Beyond Death in the Beliefs of Mankind (Boston: Houghtonh4ifKn, 193 l), p. 202.

1176 The Last Things

held this view did not anticipate any future resurrection, they did notbelieve in a bodily second coming of Christ either.lO

Neoorthodoxy took a quite different view of the matter. In the judg-ment of these theologians, the idea of the immortality of the soul was aGreek, not a biblical, concept. It stemmed from the notion that all matter,including the body, is inherently evil, and that salvation consists in deliv-erance of the good soul or spirit from the evil body. The neoorthodoxhope for the future lay instead in an expectation of the resurrection ofthe body. While some were careful to distinguish this concept fromresurrection of the flesh, some form of bodily resurrection was envi-sioned. Underlying this view was the monistic idea of the human personas a radical unity-existence means bodily existence; there is no separatespiritual entity to survive death and exist apart from the body.” Sowhereas liberalism held to immortality of the soul, neoorthodoxy held toresurrection of the body. Both schools were in agreement that theirviews were mutually exclusive. That is, it was a matter of either/or; theydid not consider the possibility of both/and.

Current Views of the lntemediate State

Soul Sleep

We turn now to examine various current understandings of the inter-mediate state. One view which over the years has had considerablepopularity is termed “soul sleep.” This is the idea that the soul, during theperiod between death and resurrection, reposes in a state of uncon-sciousness. In the sixteenth century, many Anabaptists and Sociniansapparently subscribed to this view that the soul of the dead person liesin a dreamless sleep. And today the Seventh-day Adventists list amongtheir “Fundamental Beliefs” the concepts “that the condition of man indeath is one of unconsciousness [and that] all men, good and evil alike,remain in the grave from death to the resurrection.“l* (The Jehovah’sWitnesses, a group that originated from within Seventh-day Adventism,hold to a similar view.) In the case of the Adventists, however, the phrase“soul sleep” is somewhat misleading. Anthony Hoekema suggests instead“soul-extinction,” since in the Adventist view one does not fall asleep atdeath, but actually becomes completely nonexistent, nothing surviving.13

10. Harry E. Fosdick, The Modern Use of the Bible (New York: Macmillan, 1933),pp. 9s 104.

I I. Emil Brunncr, The Christiun Doctrine of the Church, Fuith, and the Consumma-/ion (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), pp. 383-85, 408-14.

12. Selx~tlth-rlu~v Ah~c~ntists AnsMu Questions on Doctrine (Washington: Review andHerald, 1957), p. 13.

13. Anthony Hockcma, The Four Mujor Cults (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), p. 345.

Individual Fkchatology 1177

Hoekema’s characterization of the Adventist position as soul-extinction isquite in order, as long as we understand that “soul” is here being used,as is often the case, as a synonym for “person.”

The case for soul sleep rests in large measure on the fact that Scrip-ture frequently uses the imagery of sleep to refer to death. Stephensdeath is described as sleep: “And when he had said this, he fell asleep”(Acts 7:60). Paul notes that “David, after he had served the counsel ofGod in his own generation, fell asleep” (Acts 13:36). Paul uses the sameimage four times in 1 Corinthians 15 (w. 6,18,20,.5 1) and three times in1 Thessalonians 413-15. Jesus himself said of Lazarus, “Our friend Laz-arus has fallen asleep, but I go to awake him out of sleep” (John 11:l l),and then indicated clearly that he was referring to death (v. 14). Literalunderstanding of this imagery has led to the concept of soul sleep.

Every view of the intermediate state is, of course, closely related to aspecific anthropology or understanding of human nature. Those whosubscribe to soul sleep maintain that the person is a unitary entitywithout components. Man does not consist of body and soul. Rather,man, body, and soul are one and the same entity. Thus, when the bodyceases to function, the soul (i.e., the whole person) ceases to exist. Nothingsurvives physical death. There is no tension, then, between immortalityof the soul and resurrection of the body. The simplicity of this viewmakes it quite appealing. Nevertheless, there are several problems.

One of the problems is that there are several biblical references topersonal, conscious existence between death and resurrection. The mostextended is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-3 1).While it was not Jesus’ primary intent here to teach us about the natureof the intermediate state, it is unlikely that he would mislead us on thissubject. Another reference is Jesus’ words to the thief on the cross, “Truly,I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43). Inaddition, dying persons speak of giving up their spirits to God. Jesushimself said, “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!” (Luke 23:46);and Stephen said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 759). While onemight argue that Stephen was not necessarily speaking under the inspi-ration of the Holy Spirit and consequently may not have been expressingan infallible word from God on this point, certainly what Jesus said mustbe regarded as authoritative.

The second problem is whether it is legitimate to conclude that Scrip-ture passages which refer to death as sleep are literal descriptions of thecondition of the dead prior to the resurrection. It would seem, rather,that “sleep” should be understood simply as a euphemism for the cessa-tion of life. Nothing more specific is implied about the character of thedead persons state. Jesus’ use of the image of sleep in reference toLazarus (John 11:ll) and the explanation which follows (v. 14) support

117x The Last Things

this interpretation. If indeed “sleep” is more than a figure of speech, thatneeds to be substantiated.

Individual Eschatology 1179

Another problem for the theory of soul sleep is the conceptual difh-culty attaching to the view that human nature is unitary. If indeednothing of the person survives death, then what will be the basis of ouridentity? If the soul, the whole person, becomes extinct, what will cometo life in the resurrection? On what basis can we maintain that what willcome to life will be the person who died? It would seem that we willidentify the postresurrection person with the predeath person on thebasis of the body that is raised. Yet this in turn presents two furtherdifficulties. How can the very same molecules come together to form thepostresurrection person? The molecules constituting the predeath per-son may well have been destroyed, have formed new compounds, oreven have been part of someone else’s body. In this connection, cremationpresents a particularly dilhcult problem. But beyond that, to identify thepredeath and postresurrection persons on the basis of the body raised isto hold that human nature is primarily material or physical. For all of theforegoing reasons, the theory of soul sleep must be rejected as inade-quate.

are in a perfect state of grace and penitence, who are completely purifiedat the time of death, go directly and immediately to heaven, which, whileit is described as both a state and a place, should be thought of primarilyas a state.” Those who, although in a state of grace, are not yet spirituallyperfect go to purgatory.

Two other features of the Catholic view of the intermediate state applyto rather limited groups. Limbus patrum was the abode of dead saintsprior to the time of Christ. When Christ had accomplished his atoningwork on the cross, he descended into Sheol, where the Old Testamentbelievers had gone, and delivered them from their captivity. Since thattime limbus patrum has been empty. Limbus infantium is for unbaptizedinfants. Because of original sin, which can be removed only by thesacrament of baptism, they may not go into the presence of the Lord.They suffer the punishment for original sin, which is the loss of thebeatific vision or the presence of God. They do not, however, experiencethe punishment for actual sin, which is the suffering referred to above.

Purgatory

Because the doctrine of purgatory is primarily a Roman Catholicteaching, it is necessary to see it in the context of Catholic dogma ingeneral. We begin with the idea that immediately upon death, the individ-uals eternal status is determined. The soul becomes aware of God’sjudgment upon it. This is not so much a formal sentence as it is a clearperception of whether one is guilty or innocent before God. The soul isthen “moved of its own accord to hasten either to Heaven, or Hell, orPurgatory, according to its deserts.“14 The text on which this view rests isHebrews 9:27: “it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comesjudgment.” The juxtaposition of these two events is understood as anindication that immediately after death there is a judgment which deter-mines the destination of each individual. Those who have died in a stateof wickedness go directly to hell, where they immediately realize thatthey are irrevocably lost. 15 Their punishment, eternal in nature, consistsof both the sense of having lost the greatest of all goods and actualsuffering. The suffering is in proportion to the individuals wickednessand will intensify after the resurrection. 16 On the other hand, those who

It is purgatory which constitutes the most unusual and most interest-ing feature of the traditional Roman Catholic teaching regarding theintermediate state. Joseph Pohle defines it as “a state of temporarypunishment for those who, departing this life in the grace of God, arenot entirely free from venial sins or have not yet fully paid the satisfactiondue to their transgressions.“18 As we noted, those who leave this life in astate of spiritual perfection go directly to heaven. Those who have mortalsin upon their souls or are entirely outside the grace of the church areconsigned to hell. But there is a large number who fall into neither ofthese two groups. Since nothing defiled can enter heaven, God cannotjustly receive them into his immediate presence. On the other hand, hecannot justly consign them to hell, for they have done nothing warrantingsuch severe punishment. Purgatory is a middle state, so to speak, wherethey may be cleansed of their venial sins.

Thomas Aquinas argued that the cleansing which takes place afterdeath is through penal sufferings. In this life, we can be cleansed byperforming works of satisfaction, but after death that is no longer pos-sible. To the extent that we fail to attain complete purity through works

I on earth, we must be further cleansed in the life to come. “This is thereason,” said Thomas, “why we posit a purgatory or place of cleansing.“19Thomas also suggested that purgatory, as a place of suffering, is con-nected with hell.20 Pohle argues, instead, that it is connected with heaven,

14. Joseph Pohle, Eschatology; or, The Catholic Doctrine of the Last Things: A Dog- 17. Ibid., p. 28.r~~utic Treuticc (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1917), p. 18. 18. Ibid., p. 77.

15. Ibid., p. 70. 19. Thomas Aquinas Summa contra Gentiles 4. 91.16. Ibid., pp. 52-61. 20. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologica, Appendix, question 1, article 2.

1180 The Last Things Individual Fkchatology

since those in purgatory are children of God and will sooner or later beadmitted to the abode of the blessed. Yet while their eventual departurefrom purgatory to heaven is sure and definite, the time of deliverance isuncertain and the rate of cleansing variable.

The forgiveness of venial sins can be accomplished in three differentways: by an unconditional forgiveness on God’s part; by suffering andthe performance of penitential works; and by contrition. Although Godcan forgive unconditionally, he has chosen to require contrition andworks as conditions of forgiveness in this life; and so it seems likely thathe does not forgive venial sins unconditionally in purgatory either? Sincethe soul in purgatory is not able to perform works of satisfaction, it canatone only by passive suffering. But there are also three means by whichthe souls in purgatory can be assisted in their progress toward heaven bythe faithful still on earth-the mass, prayers, and good works.22 Thesethree means reduce the period of time necessary for purgatorial suffer-ing to have its full effect. When the soul arrives at spiritual perfection, novenial sin remaining, it is released and passes into heaven.

The Roman Catholic Church bases its belief in purgatory upon bothtradition and Scripture. We find a clear statement of the doctrine in theDecree of Union adopted at the Council of Florence in 1439: “souls arecleansed by purgatorial pains after death, and in order that they may berescued from these pains, they are benefitted by the suffrages of theliving faith, viz.: the sacrifice of the Mass, prayers, alms, and other worksof piety.‘Q3 The Council of Trent reiterated the belief, pointing to variouschurch fathers and synods as authorities for it. As we have noted,Thomas Aquinas wrote concerning purgatory, and there was an ancienttradition of praying, offering the mass, and giving alms for the benefit ofthe dead. Tertullian mentions anniversary masses for the dead, a practicewhich suggests belief in purgatory.24

pious thought. Therefore, he made atonement for the dead, that theymight be delivered from their sin.

The New Testament text most often cited is Matthew 12:32, where Jesussays, “But whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven,either in this age or in the age to come.” Roman Catholics contend thatthis verse implies that some sins (i.e., sins other than speaking against theHoly Spirit) will be forgiven in the world to come, an interpretation heldby Augustine25 and some other Fathers. Some Catholics also cite1 Corinthians 3: 15: “If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss,though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.”

The major points in our rejection of the concept of purgatory arepoints which distinguish Catholicism and Protestantism in general. Themajor text appealed to is in the Apocrypha, which Protestants do notaccept as canonical Scripture. And the inference from Matthew 12:32 israther forced; the verse in no way indicates that some sins will beforgiven in the life to come. Further, the concept of purgatory implies asalvation by works. For humans are thought to atone, at least in part, fortheir sins. This idea, however, is contrary to many clear teachings ofScripture, including Galatians 3: 1-14 and Ephesians 2%9. To be sure,there is something quite appealing about the doctrine of purgatory.When one thinks about it, it simply does not seem right that we shouldbe allowed to go freely into heaven. Each of us ought to suffer a bit forour sins. Here we have a clear indication of just how difficult it is formost of us to accept the idea of salvation by grace. But it is the teachingof Scripture that must prevail, not what appears to us to be logical andjust; and on that basis, the concept of purgatory-and indeed any viewwhich posits a period of probation and atonement following death-must be rejected.

The primary biblical text appealed to is 2 Maccabees 12:43-45: Instantaneous Resurrection

He [Judas Maccabaeus] also took up a collection, man by man, to theamount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem toprovide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably,taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that thosewho had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous andfoolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid rewardthat is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and

2 1. Pohle, Eschutology, pp. 89-9 1.22. Ibid., p. 95.23. Ibid., p. 78.24. Tertullian On A4onogurny 10.

A novel and creative conception that has been advanced in recentyears is the idea of an instant resurrection or, more accurately, an instantreclothing. This is the belief that immediately upon death, the believerreceives the resurrection body that has been promised. One of the mostcomplete elaborations of this view is found in W. D. Davies’s Paul andRabbinic Judaism. Davies holds that Paul had two different conceptionsconcerning our resurrection. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul is thinking of afuture resurrection of the body. In 2 Corinthians 5, however, we have hismore advanced understanding of the subject. The initial stages of theage to come had already appeared in the resurrection of Jesus. Paul

25. Augustine Confessions 9. 13.

11x1

1182 The Last Things

realizes that, having died and risen with Christ, he is already beingtransformed and will receive his new or heavenly body at the momentof physical death. The fear of being unclothed, which he speaks of inverse 3, has been supplanted by the realization that on both this side andthe other side of death, he will be clothed.26

It was the position of rabbi& Judaism that we will be disembodied atdeath and will then have to wait for the general resurrection. Daviescontends that Paul presents a different view in his later writings:

[The dead will], on the contrary, be embodied, and there is no room inPaul’s theology for an intermediate state of the dead. It agrees with thisthat Paul in later passages of his Epistles speaks not of the resurrectionof Christians but of their revelation. In Rom. 8.19 we read: “The earnestlonging of the creation waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God”; andin Col. 3.4 we read: “When Christ who is our life shall be revealed thenshall ye also be revealed with him in glory.” There is no need to resurrectthose who have already died and risen with Christ and received theirheavenly body, but they may be revealed. The final consummation wouldmerely be the manifestation of that which is already existent but “hidden”in the eternal order.27

According to Davies, then, when Paul wrote 2 Corinthians, he no longerbelieved in an intermediate state. Rather, upon death there will be animmediate transition into the final state, an instantaneous reception ofthe heavenly body. This position supplanted his belief in a future bodilyresurrection to take place in connection with the second advent. So if webuild our eschatology upon Paul’s most mature thinking, we presumablywill not have a doctrine of an intermediate state either.

But has Davies solved the problem? He has attempted to resolve whathe perceives to be an inherent contradiction between the Greek conceptof immortality and the rabbinic concept of bodily resurrection. Butlaboring as he does under the presupposition that human nature is anessential and absolute unity, an idea perhaps derived from behaviorism,Davies has been led astray in his interpretation of Paul. The fact is thatPaul’s anthropology was such that he could hold to both a future resur-rection and a disembodied survival. They are not contradictory ideas,but complementary parts of a whole. Nor is Davies’s solution as biblicalas he seems to think, for there are a number of passages in which Paulties the transformation of our bodies to a fuhrre resurrection accom-panying the second advent (e.g., Phil. 3:20-2 1; 1 Thess. 416-17). Paul alsomakes much of the second coming as an occasion of deliverance and

26. W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London: S.P.C.K., 1955), pp. 317-18.27. Ibid., p. 3 18.

Individual Eschatology 1183

glorification (e.g., Rom. 2:3-16; 1 Cor. 45; 2 Thess. 152:12; 2 Tim. 4:8).And Jesus himself laid emphasis upon a future time when the dead willbe raised (John 525-29). We must conclude that Davies’s solution to theproblem which, as a result of a faulty presupposition, he has injected intothe writings of Paul does little more than create additional problems.

A Suggested Resolution

Is there some way to resolve the numerous problems which attach tothe issue of the intermediate state, some means of correlating the biblicaltestimony regarding resurrection of the body and conscious survivalbetween death and resurrection? Several considerations must be kept inmind:

Joachim Jeremias has pointed out that the New Testament distin-guishes between Gehenna and Hades. Hades receives the unrigh-teous for the period between death and resurrection, whereasGehenna is the place of punishment assigned permanently at thelast judgment. The torment of Gehenna is eternal (Mark 9:43, 48).Further, the souls of the ungodly are outside the body in Hades,whereas in Gehenna both body and soul, reunited at the resurrec-tion, are destroyed by eternal fire (Mark 9:43-48; Matt. 1028). Thisis a counter to the view of some of the early church fathers that allwho die, righteous and unrighteous alike, descend to Sheol orHades, a sort of gloomy, dreamy state where they await the comingof the Messiah.28There are indications that the righteous dead do not descend toHades (Matt. 16:18-l% Acts 2:31 [quoting Ps. 16:10]).Rather, the righteous, or at least their souls, are received intoparadise (Luke 16~19-31; 23:43).Paul equates being absent from the body with being present withthe Lord (2 Cor. 51-10; Phil. 1:19-26).

On the basis of these biblical considerations, we conclude that upondeath believers go immediately to a place and condition of blessedness,and unbelievers to an experience of misery, torment, and punishment.Although the evidence is not clear, it is likely that these are the veryplaces to which believers and unbelievers will go after the great judg-ment, since the presence of the Lord (Luke 23:43; 2 Cor. 58; Phil. 1:23)would seem to be nothing other than heaven. Yet while the place of the

28. Joachim Jeremias, y&vva, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed.Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 10 ~01s. (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1964-l 976), vol. 1, pp. 657-58.

II84 The Last Things

intermediate and final states may be the same, the experiences of para-dise and Hades are doubtlessly not as intense as what will ultimately be,since the person is in a somewhat incomplete condition.

Because we developed in chapter 24 a model of human nature whichallows for disembodied personal existence, we will not go into detail here.We do need to note, however, that there is no inherent untenability aboutthe concept of disembodied existence. The human being is capable ofexisting in either a materialized (bodily) or immaterialized condition. Wemay think of these two conditions in terms of a dualism in which thesoul or spirit can exist independently of the body. Like a chemical com-pound, the body-soul, so to speak, can be broken down under certainconditions (specifically, at death), but otherwise is a definite unity. Or wemay think in terms of different states of being. Just like matter andenergy, the materialized and immaterialized conditions of the human areinterconvertible. Both of these analogies are feasible. Paul HelmF9 RichardPu~?ill~~ and others have formulated conceptions of disembodied sur-vival that are neither self-contradictory nor absurd. We conclude thatthe disembodied intermediate state set forth by the biblical teaching isphilosophically tenable.

Implications of the Doctrines of Death and the Intermediate State

1. Death is to be expected by all, believer and unbeliever. Unless weare alive when the Lord returns, it will happen to us as well. It isimportant that we take this fact seriously and live accordingly.

2. Although death is an enemy (God did not originally intend for manto die), it has now been overcome and made captive to God. It thereforeneed not be feared, for its curse has been removed by the death andresurrection of Christ. It can be faced with peace, for we know that itnow serves the Lord’s purpose of taking to himself those who have faithinhim.

3. There is between death and resurrection an intermediate state inwhich believers and unbelievers experience, respectively, the presenceand absence of God. While these experiences are less intense than thefinal states, they are of the same qualitative nature.

4. In both this life and the life to come, the basis of the believer’srelationship with God is grace, not works. There need be no fear, then,that our imperfections will require some type of postdeath purgingbefore we can enter into the full presence of God.

29. Paul Helm, “A Theory of Disembodied Survival and Re-embodied Existence,”Hc1igiou.s Studies 14, no. 1 (March 1978): 15-26.

30. Richard L. Pm-till, “The intelligibility of Disembodied Survival,” Christiun SchohrkRevitw 5, no. 1 ( 1975): 3-22.

I- -. ’̂ II_- -‘-’

The Second Comingand Its Consequents

The Second ComingThe Definiteness of the EventThe Indefiniteness of the TimeThe Character of the Coming

PersonalPhysicalVisibleUnexpectedTriumphant and Glorious

The Unity of the Second ComingThe Imminence of the Second Coming

ResurrectionThe Biblical TeachingA Work of the Triune GodBodily in NatureOf Both the Righteous and the Unrighteous

The Final JudgmentA Future EventJesus Christ the JudgeThe Subjects of the JudgmentThe Basis of the JudgmentThe Finality of the Judgment

Implications of the Second Coming and Its Consequents

1185

1186 The Last Things

Among the most important events of cosmic eschatology, as wehave defined it in this work, are the second coming and its consequents:the resurrection and the final judgment. These events form the subjectmatter of this chapter.

The Second Coming

With the exception of the certainty of death, the one eschatologicaldoctrine on which orthodox theologians most agree is the second comingof Christ. It is indispensable to eschatology. It is the basis of the Christian’shope, the one event which will mark the beginning of the completion ofGods plan.

The Definiteness of the Event

Many Scriptures indicate clearly that Christ is to return. Jesus himselfpromises that he will come again. In his great discourse on the end times(Matt. 24-25) he says, “Then will appear the sign of the Son of man inheaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will seethe Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and greatglory” (2430). Several other times in this same speech he mentions the“coming of the Son of man” (w. 27,37,39,42,44). Toward the end of thediscussion we read: “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and allthe angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne” (253 1). All ofthe teachings in this speech, including the parables, presuppose thesecond coming. Indeed, Jesus delivered the discourse in response to hisdisciples’ request, “Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign ofyour coming and of the close of the age?” (Matt. 243). Later that week,in his hearing before Caiaphas, Jesus said, “But I tell you, hereafter youwill see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and comingon the clouds of heaven” (Matt. 26:64). While Matthew records more thando the other Gospel writers, Mark, Luke, and John also include some ofJesus’ comments on the second coming. We find in Mark 13:26 and Luke2 1:27, for example, almost identical declarations that the people living inthe last days will see the Son of man coming in clouds with power andglory. And John tells us that in the upper room Jesus promised hisdisciples, “And when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come againand will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also” (John14:3).

In addition to Jesus’ own words, there are numerous other directstatements in the New Testament regarding his return. At Jesus’ ascen-sion, two men in white robes, presumably angels, said to the disciples,

The Second Coming and Its Consequents 1187

“Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, whowas taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as yousaw him go into heaven” (Acts 1:ll). The second coming was part of theapostolic kerygma: “Repent therefore . . . that [God] may send the Christappointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time forestablishing all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets fromof old” (Acts 3:19-2 1). Paul wrote of the second coming on severaloccasions. He assured the Philippians, “But our commonwealth is inheaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who willchange our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power whichenables him even to subject all things to himself” (Phil. 3:20-21). Thispassage in a book not explicitly eschatological is particularly significantin that it shows the practical effect which the second coming will haveupon us. Probably Paul’s clearest and most direct statement is in1 Thessalonians 4: 1.5-l 6: “For this we declare to you by the word of theLord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself willdescend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangels call,and with the sound of the trumpet of God.” Other direct statements arefound in 2 Thessalonians 1:7, 10; and Titus 2: 13. In addition, we find inPaul many less elaborate references to the second coming: 1 Corinthians1:7; 1523; 1 Thessalonians 2: 19; 3: 13; 523; 2 Thessalonians 2: 1, 8;1 Timothy 6: 14; 2 Timothy 4:1,8. Other authors also mention the secondcoming: Hebrews 9:28; James 57-B; 1 Peter 1:7, 13; 2 Peter 1: 16; 3:4, 12;1 John 2:28. Certainly the second coming is one of the most widely taughtdoctrines in the New Testament.

The Indefiniteness of the Time

While the fact of the second coming is very emphatically and clearlyasserted in Scripture, the time is not. Indeed, the Bible makes it clear thatwe do not know and cannot ascertain the exact time when Jesus willreturn. Although God has set a definite time, that time has not beenrevealed. Jesus indicated that neither he nor the angels knew the time ofhis return, and neither would his disciples: “But of that day or that hourno one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only theFather. Take heed, watch; for you do not know when the time willcome. . . . Watch therefore-for you do not know when the master of thehouse will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or in themorning” (Mark 13:32-33, 35; see also Matt. 24:36-44). Apparently thetime of his return was one of the matters to which Jesus was referringwhen, just before his ascension, he responded to his disciples’ questionwhether he would now restore the kingdom to Israel: “It is not for you to

1188 The Last Things The Second Coming and Its C’orlsrqllrn*s

know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority”(Acts 1:7). Instead of satisfying their curiosity, Jesus told the disciples thatthey were to be his witnesses worldwide. That the time of his return isnot to be revealed explains Jesus’ repeated emphasis upon its unexpect-edness and the consequent need for watchfulness (Matt. 24:44,50; 25:13;Mark 13:35).

The Character of the Coming

Personal

That Christ’s second coming will be personal in character is not thesubject of any extensive discussion. Rather, it is simply assumed through-out the references to his return. Jesus says, for example, “I will comeagain and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also”(John 143). Paul’s statement that “the Lord himself will descend fromheaven” (1 Thess. 4: 16) leaves little doubt that the return will be personalin nature. The word of the angels at Jesus’ ascension, “This Jesus, whowas taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as yousaw him go into heaven” (Acts 1:l l), argues conclusively that his returnwill be just as personal as was his departure.

Nonetheless, some recent interpreters have given the Scriptures citedabove a different interpretation. This is an attempt to resolve what theybelieve to be two contrasting and even conflicting emphases within Jesus’teaching.’ On the one hand, there is the apocalyptic motif: the kingdomwill be ushered in through a sudden and cataclysmic event, the personalreturn of Christ. On the other hand, there is the theme that the kingdomis immanent; it is already present within the world and will keep ongrowing in a gradual fashion. William Newton Clarke interprets theformer in the light of the latter: “No visible return of Christ to the earthis to be expected, but rather the long and steady advance of his spiritualKingdom. . . . If OLU- Lord will but complete the spiritual coming that hehas begun, there will be no need of a visible advent to make perfect hisglory on the earth.“2 Sometimes this approach has been adopted out ofa conviction that Jesus believed in and taught (as did the early church)an impending return, probably within that very generation, but wasobviously wrong.3 A careful exegesis of the pertinent passages will show,

1. L. Harold DeWolf, A Theology of the Living Church (New York: Harper and Row,1960), pp. 306-07.

2. William Newton Clarke, An Otrtline of Christian Theology (New York: Scribner,190 1 ), p. 444.

3. E.g., Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of ItsPYO~Y~.S.S from Reimarus to Wrede (New York: Macmillan, 1964), pp. 368-69; RudolfBultmann, Theology of the New Testament (New York: Scribner, 195 l), vol. 1, pp. 5-6.

I189

however, that at no point does Jesus specifically teach that he will returnquickly. Further, there is no essential reason why the kingdom cannot beboth present and future, both immanent and cataclysmic.

Physical

There are those who claim that Jesus’ promise to return was fulfilledon Pentecost through a spiritual coming. Jesus did, after all, say, “I amwith you always, to the close of the age” (Matt. 28:20). He also said, “If aman loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, andwe will come to him and make our home with him” (John 14:23). AndPaul spoke of the riches of this mystery, “Christ in you, the hope of glory”(Col. 1:27). Some interpreters put a great deal of weight upon the use ofthe term rc~pouaia! for the second coming. Pointing out that the wordbasically means “presence,” they argue that its force in references to “thecoming of the Lord” is that Jesus is present with us, not that he is comingat some future time.

Since Pentecost Christ has indeed been with and in each believer fromthe moment of new birth on. Several considerations, however, preventour regarding this spiritual presence as the full meaning of the comingwhich he promised. While it is true that the basic meaning of rrapouaiais “presence,” it also means “coming,” and this is the meaning which ismost prominent in the New Testament, as can be determined by exam-ining how the word is used in context. Further, there are several otherNew Testament terms, particularly &ro~drhu~~r and &~TTL$&YEL(Y, whichclearly do indicate “coming. “4 And the statement in Acts 1:ll that Jesuswill return in the same way as he departed implies that the return will bebodily. Perhaps the most persuasive argument, however, is that many ofthe promises of Jesus’ second coming were made after Pentecost, in factas much as sixty years later, and they still placed the coming in the future.

Visible

The Jehovah’s Witnesses maintain that Christ began his reign over theearth on October 1, 19 14. This was not a visible return to earth, however,for Jesus has not had a visible body since his ascension. Nor was it evena literal return, since it was in heaven that Christ ascended the throne.His presence, then, is in the nature of an invisible influence.5

It is difficult to reconcile the Witnesses’ conception of the secondcoming with the biblical descriptions. Once again we point to Acts 1:ll:Christ’s return will be like his departure, which was certainly visible, forthe disciples watched Jesus being taken into heaven (vv. 9-10). Other

4. Gcorgc E. Ladd, 772~~ Hk.~.strtl llopc’r (Grand Rapids: Eer-dmans, 1956). pp. 65-70.5. I,et God f& TYZW (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1952), p. 14 I.

1190The Last Things

descriptions of the second coming make it clear that it will be quiteconspicuous; for example, Matthew 2430: “and they will see the Son ofman coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.”

Unexpected

Although the second coming will be preceded by several signs-thedesolating sacrilege (l’vlatt. 24:15), great tribulation (v. 2 l), darkening ofthe sun (v. 29), they will not indicate the exact time of Jesus’ return.Consequently, there will be many for whom his return will be quiteunexpected. It will be as in the days of Noah (Matt. 2437). Although Noahspent some time in the construction of the ark, none of his contempo-raries, except for his own family, prepared themselves for the flood. Peoplewill be feeling secure, but sudden destruction will come upon them(1 Thess. 52-3). Jesus’ teachings suggest that because of a long delaybefore the second coming, some will be lulled into inattention (Matt.25: 1-13; cf. 2 Peter 3:3-4). When the parousia finally occurs, however itwill happen so quickly that there will be no time to prepare (Matt. 2&-10). As Louis Berkhof puts it, “The Bible intimates that the measure ofsurprise at the second coming of Christ will be in an inverse ratio to themeasure of their watchfulness.“6

Triumphant and Glorious

Various descriptions of the return of Christ indicate its glorious char-acter, a sharp contrast to the lowly and humble circumstances of his firstcoming. The latter was the hrst stage of Christ’s humiliation. the formerwill be the final stage of his exaltation. He will come on the 'clouds withgreat power and great glory (Matt. 24:30; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27). He willbe accompanied by his angels and heralded by the archangel (1 Thess.4:16). He will sit upon his glorious throne and judge all the nations (Matt.2531-46). The irony of this situation is that he who was judged at theend of his stay on earth will be the judge over all at his second coming.Clearly, he will be the triumphant, glorious Lord of all.

The Unity of the Second Coming

A large and influential group of conservative Christians teaches thatChrist’s coming will actually take place in two stages. These stages arethe rapture and the revelation, or the “coming for” the saints and the“coming with” the saints. These two events will be separated by the greattribulation, believed to be approximately seven years in duration. Those

6. Louis Bcrkhof, System&c Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), p. 706.

The Second Coming and Its Consequents 1191

who hold this view are termed pretribulationists, and most of them aredispensationalists.

The rapture or “coming for” will be secret; it will not be noticed byanyone except the church. Because it is to precede the tribulation, thereis no prophecy which must yet be fulfilled before it can take place.Consequently, the rapture could occur at any moment or, in the usualterminology, it is imminent. It will deliver the church from the agony ofthe great tribulation. Then at the end of the seven years, the Lord willreturn again, bringing his church with him in a great triumphant arrival.This will be a conspicuous, glorious event universally recognized.7 Christwill then set up his earthly millennial kingdom.

In contrast to pretribulationism, the other views of Christ’s secondcoming hold that it will be a single occurrence, a unified event. Theyrefer all prophecies regarding the second coming to the one event,whereas the pretribulationist refers some of the prophecies to the rap-ture and others to the revelation.8

How are we to resolve this issue? Will the second coming be a singleor a dual-stage occurrence? While numerous considerations which bearupon this issue will be examined in the following chapter, there is onecrucial consideration which we will examine now. It relates to the vocab-ulary used to designate the second advent. The three major terms forthe second coming are 7rcwpouaia, &7rOK&hU\CIlS, and ~~L+&wKx. The pre-tribulation& argues that ~~pou& refers to the rapture, the first stage ofthe return, the believer’s blessed hope of being delivered from this worldbefore the tribulation begins. The other two terms refer to Christ’s com-ing with the saints at the end of the tribulation.

When examined closely, however, the terms which designate the sec-ond coming do not support the distinction made by pretribulationists. Zn1 Thessalonians 415-17, for example, the term ~~~pouaicu is used to denotean event which it is hard to conceive of as the rapture: “For this wedeclare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who areleft until the coming [7~~pouaicu] of the Lord, shall not precede those whohave fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with acry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of thetrumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who arealive who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the cloudsto meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we always be with the Lord.” AsGeorge Ladd says, “It is very difficult to find a secret coming of Christ in

7. John F. Walvoord, The Return of the Lord (Findlay, Ohio: Dunham, 1955), pp.52-53.

8. Ladd, Blessed Hope, p. 67.

1194 The Last Things

before Jesus would return, the second coming could not have happenedimmediately. His saying, “Watch!” and “You do not know the hour,” is notinconsistent with a delay to allow certain events to happen.

This is not to say that it is inappropriate to speak of imminence. It is,however, the complex of events surrounding the second coming, ratherthan the single event itself, that is imminent. Perhaps we should speak ofthis complex as imminent and the second coming itself as “impending.”

Resurrection

The major result of Christ’s second coming, from the standpoint ofindividual eschatology, is the resurrection. This is the basis for the believ-er’s hope in the face of death. Although death is inevitable, the believeranticipates being delivered from its power.

The Biblical Teaching

The Bible clearly promises resurrection of the believer. The Old Tes-tament gives us several direct statements, the first being Isaiah 2619:“Thy dead shall live, their bodies shall rise. 0 dwellers in the dust, awakeand sing for joy! For thy dew is a dew of light, and on the land of theshades thou wilt let it fall.” Daniel 12:2 teaches resurrection of the be-liever and of the wicked as well: “Xnd many of those who sleep in thedust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shameand everlasting contempt.” The idea of resurrection is also asserted inEzekiel 37: 12-l 4: “Therefore prophesy, and say to them, Thus says theLord GOD: Behold, I will open your graves, and raise you from yourgraves, 0 my people; and I will bring you home into the land of Israel.And you shall know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves, andraise you from your graves, 0 my people. And I will put my Spirit withinyou, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land; then youshall know that I, the LORD, have spoken, and I have done it, says theLORD.”

In addition to direct statements, the Old Testament intimates that wecan expect deliverance from death or Sheol. Psalm 49: 15 says, “But Godwill ransom my soul from the power of Sheol, for he will receive me.”While there is no statement about the body in this passage, there is anexpectation that the incomplete existence in Sheol will not be our finalcondition. Psalm 17:15 speaks of awaking in the presence of God: “As forme, I shall behold thy face in righteousness; when I awake, I shall besatisfied with beholding thy form.” Some expositors see similar intima-

The Second Coming and Its Consequents 119.5

tions in Psalm 73:24-25 and Proverbs 23:14,14 although the latter inparticular is questionable.

While we must exercise care not to read too much of the New Testa-ment revelation into the Old Testament, it is significant that Jesus and theNew Testament writers maintained that the Old Testament teaches res-urrection. When Jesus was questioned by the Sadducees, who deniedthe resurrection, he accused them of error due to lack of knowledge ofthe Scriptures and of the power of God (Mark 12:24), and then went onto argue for the resurrection on the basis of the Old Testament: ‘And asfor the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in thepassage about the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham,and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead,but of the living you are quite wrong” (w. 26-27). Peter (Acts 2:24-32)and Paul (Acts 13:32-37) saw Psalm 16: 10 as a prediction of the resurrec-tion of Jesus. Hebrews 11:19 commends Abraham’s belief in God’s abilityto raise persons from the dead: “He considered that God was able toraise men even from the dead; hence, figuratively speaking, he did re-ceive Faac] back.”

The New Testament, of course, teaches the resurrection much moreclearly. We have already noted Jesus’ rejoinder to the Sadducees, whichis recorded in all three Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 22:29-32; Mark 12:24-27;Luke 20~34-38). And John reports several additional occasions whenJesus spoke of the resurrection. One of the clearest declarations is inJohn 5: “Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, whenthe dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear willlive. . . . Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are inthe tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good,to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrec-tion of judgment” (w. 25,28-29). Other affirmations of the resurrectionare found in John 639-40, 44, 54, and the narrative of the raising ofLazarus (John 11, especially w. 24-25).

The New Testament Epistles also give testimony to the resurrection.Paul clearly believed and taught that there is to be a future bodilyresurrection. The classic passage is 1 Corinthians 15, where he discussesthe resurrection at great length. The teaching is especially pointed inverses 51 and 52: “Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but weshall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkhng of an eye, at the lasttrumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised im-perishable, and we shall be changed.” The resurrection is also clearlytaught in 1 Thessalonians 4: 13-l 6 and implied in 2 Corinthians 5: l- 10.And when Paul appeared before the council, he created dissension be-

14. Berkhof, Systematic Theology p. 72 1.

1196 The Last Things

tween the Pharisees and Sadducees by declaring, “Brethren, I am aPharisee, a son of Pharisees; with respect to the hope and the resurrec-tion of the dead I am on trial” (Acts 23:6); he made a similar declarationbefore Felix (Acts 2421). John also affirms the doctrine of resurrection(Rev. 204-6, 13).

A Work of the Triune God

All of the members of the Trinity are involved in the resurrection ofbelievers. Paul informs us that the Father will raise believers through theSpirit: “If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you,he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortalbodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you” (Rom. 8:ll). There isa special connection between the resurrection of Christ and the generalresurrection, a point particularly emphasized by Paul in 1 Corinthians15: 12-14: “Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how cansome of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there isno resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ hasnot been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.”In Colossians 1: 18 Paul refers to Jesus as “the beginning, the f&t-bornfrom the dead.” In Revelation 15 John similarly refers to Jesus as the“first-born of the dead.” This expression does not point so much to Jesus’being first in time within the group as to his supremacy over the group(cf. Col. 1:15, “the first-born of all creation”). The resurrection of Christ isthe basis for the believer’s hope and confidence. Paul writes, “For sincewe believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, Godwill bring with him those who have fallen asleep.” And although thecontext does not explicitly mention the general resurrection, Peter at thebeginning of his first epistle ties the new birth and the living hope of thebeliever to the resurrection of Christ and then looks to the secondcoming, when genuine faith will result in praise, glory, and honor (1 Peter1:3-9).

Bodily in Nature

There are several passages in the New Testament which affirm thatthe body will be restored to life. One of them is Romans 8:ll: “If theSpirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he whoraised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies alsothrough his Spirit which dwells in you.” In Philippians 3:20-2 1 Paul writes,“But our commonwealth is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, theLord Jesus Christ, who will change our lowly body to be like his gloriousbody, by the power which enables him even to subject all things to

The Second Coming and Its Cor~serpents I197

himself.” In the resurrection chapter, 1 Corinthians 15, he says, “It is sowna physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body,there is also a spiritual body” (v. 44). Paul also makes clear that the viewthat resurrection has already occurred, that is, in the form of a spiritualresurrection not incompatible with the fact that the bodies are still lyingin their graves, is a heresy. He makes this point when he condemns theviews of Hymenaeus and Philetus, “who have swerved from the truth byholding that the resurrection is past already. They are upsetting the faithof some” (2 Tim. 2: 18).

In addition, there are inferential or indirect evidences of the bodilynature of the resurrection. The redemption of the believer is spoken ofas involving the body, not merely the soul: “We know that the wholecreation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not onlythe creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit,groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redernption of ourbodies” (Rom. 8:22-23). In 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 Paul points out thespiritual significance of the body. This is in sharp contrast to the view ofthe Gnostics, who minimized the body. Whereas some Gnostics drew theconclusion that, the body being evil, a strict asceticism should be prac-ticed, others concluded that what is done with the body is spirituallyirrelevant, and hence engaged in licentious behavior. Paul, however, in-sists that the body is holy. Our bodies are members of Christ (v. 1.5). Thebody is a temple of the Holy Spirit (v. 19). “The body is not meant forimmorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body” (v. 13). In viewof the emphasis on the body, the statement which immediately follows isobviously an argument for bodily resurrection: ‘And God raised the Lordand will also raise us up by his power” (v. 14). The conclusion of theentire passage is: “So glorify God in your body” (v. 20).

Another indirect argument for the bodily character of the resurrectionis that Jesus’ resurrection was bodily in nature. When Jesus appeared tohis disciples, they were frightened, thinking that they were seeing a spirit.He reassured them by saying, “Why are you troubled, and why doquestionings rise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is Imyself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as yousee that I have” (Luke 24:38-39). And when he later appeared to Thomas,who had expressed skepticism about the resurrection, Jesus said, “Putyour finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place itin my side; do not be faithless, but believing” (John 20:27). That Jesus wasseen and heard and recognized by the disciples suggests that he had abody similar to the one he had possessed before. The fact that the tombwas empty and the body was never produced by the opponents of Christis a further indication of the bodily nature of his resurrection. The specialconnection which, as we have already noted, exists between the rcsurrcc-

I I98 The Last Things

tion of Christ and that of the believer argues that our resurrection willbe bodily as well.

We now must face the question of just what it means to say that theresurrection involves the body. There are certain problems if we lookupon the resurrection as merely a physical resuscitation. One is that thebody would presumably be subject to dying again. Apparently Lazarusand the others restored to life by Jesus eventually died again and wereburied. Yet Paul speaks of the new body as “imperishable,” in contrast tothe “perishable” body that is buried (1 Cor. 1542). A second problem isthe contrast drawn between the “physical [soul&h] body” that is sownand the “spiritual body” that is raised (v. 44). There is a sign&cant differ-ence between the two, but we do not know the precise nature of thatdifference. Further, there are explicit statements which exclude the pos-sibility that the resurrection body will be purely physical. Paul says nearthe end of his discussion of the resurrection body, “Flesh and bloodcannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit theimperishable” (1 Cor. 1550). Jesus’ retort to the Sadducees, “For in theresurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are likeangels in heaven” (Matt. 22:30), seems to carry the same implication.Finally, there is the problem of how one’s body can be reconstituted frommolecules which may have become part of another person’s body.15Cannibalism presents the most extreme example of this problem. Humanbodies serving to fertilize fields where crops are grown and the scatteringof human ashes over a river from which drinking water is drawn areother cases in point. A ludicrous parody of the Sadducees’ question, “Inthe resurrection whose wife will she be?” (Mark 12:23), arises; namely,“Whose molecules will they be in the resurrection?”

What we have, then, is something more than a postdeath survival bythe spirit or soul; this something more is not simply a physical resuscita-tion, however. There is a utilization of the old body, but a transformationof it in the process. Some sort of metamorphosis occurs, so that a newbody arises. This new body has some connection or point of identity withthe old body, but is differently constituted. Paul speaks of it as a spiritualbody (1 Cor. 1544) but does not elaborate. He uses the analogy of a seedand the plant that springs from it (v. 37). What sprouts from the groundis not merely that which is planted. It issues from that original seed,however.16

IS. See Augustus H. Strong’s question, “Who ate Roger Williams?” in SystematicTheofogv (Westwood, N.J.: Revel], 1907), p. 1019.

16. Gcorgc E. Ladd points out that although Paul does not attempt to describe thenature of the resurrection body, he does mention some qualities in which it will differfrom the physical body-A Theology of the New TRrtament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1974), p. 564.

The Second Coming and Its Consequents 1199

The philosophical problem here is the basis of identity. What is it thatmarks each of us as the same individual at birth, as an adult, and in theresurrection? Certainly not the cells of the body, for we know that thereis a complete change of cells within a person’s body once every sevenyears. If biological cells were the basis of identity, adults would not bethe persons they were at birth. There is evidently a continuity of identity,however, despite all of the changes. The adult is the same person as thechild, even if substitutions have been made for every cell in the body.Similarly, despite the transformation which will occur at resurrection,we know from Paul that we will still be the same person.

It is sometimes assumed that our new bodies will be just like that ofJesus in the period immediately following his resurrection. His bodyapparently bore the physical marks of his crucifixion, and could be seenand touched (John 20~27). Although the Scripture does not explicitly saythat Jesus ate, we draw that inference from Luke 24:28-31 and John21:9-E. It should be borne in mind that there were more steps remainingin Jesus’ exaltation. The ascension, involving a transition from this space-time universe to the spiritual realm of heaven, may well have producedyet another transformation. The change which will occur in our bodiesat the resurrection (01; in the case of those still alive, at the secondcoming) occurred in two stages in his case. Our resurrection body willbe like Jesus’ present body, not like that body he had between his resur-rection and ascension. We will not have those characteristics of Jesus’postresurrection earthly body which appear inconsistent with the de-scriptions of our resurrection bodies (e.g., physical tangibility and theneed to eat).

We conclude that there will be a bodily reality of some type in theresurrection. It will have some connection with and derive from ouroriginal body, and yet it will not be merely a resuscitation of our originalbody. Rather, there will be a transformation or metamorphosis. An anal-ogy here is the petrification of a log or a stump. While the contour of theoriginal object is retained, the composition is entirely different.” We havedifficulty in understanding because we do not know the exact nature ofthe resurrection body. It does appear, however, that it will retain and atthe same time glorify the human form. We will be free of the imperfec-tions and needs which we had on earth.

17. A number of theologians have held this or a similar position. Origen suggestedthat the two bodies have the same “seminal principle or form.” Thomas Aquinas positedthat the resurrection body will have the same substance, but different accidents. M. E.Dahl speaks of somatic identity without material identity. John Hick refers to the resur-rection body as a divine creation of an exact replica of the previous body. For a mot-ccomplete account of these views, see Paul Badham, Christian Beliefs About L,ife AfterDeath (New York: Harper and Row, 1976), pp. 65-94.

I 200 The Last Things The Second Coming and Its Consequents 1201

Of Both the Righteous and the Unrighteous

Most of the references to the resurrection are to the resurrection ofbelievers. Isaiah 26: 19 speaks of the resurrection in a fashion whichindicates that it is a reward. Jesus speaks of the “resurrection of the just”(Luke 14: 14). In his statement to the Sadducees about the resurrectionhe declares that “those who are accounted worthy to attain to that ageand to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given inmarriage” (Luke 20:35). He afhrms to Martha, “I am the resurrection andthe life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, andwhoever lives and believes in me shall never die” (John 11:25-26). InPhilippians 3: 11 Paul expresses his desire and hope “that if possible I mayattain the resurrection from the dead.” Neither the Synoptic Gospels norPaul’s writings make explicit reference to unbelievers being raised fromthe dead.

On the other hand, there are a number of passages which do indicatea resurrection of unbelievers. Daniel 12:2 says, ‘And many of those whosleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, andsome to shame and everlasting contempt.” John reports a similar state-ment of Jesus: “Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when allwho are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who havedone good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, tothe resurrection of judgment” (John 528-29). Paul, in his defense beforeFelix, said, “But this I admit to you, that according to the Way, which theycall a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laiddown by the law or written in the prophets, having a hope in God whichthese themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the justand the unjust” (Acts 24:14-15). And since both believers and unbelieverswill be present at and involved in the last judgment, we conclude thatthe resurrection of both is necessary. Whether they will be raised simul-taneously or at two different times will be discussed in the followingchapter.

The Final Judgment

The second coming will also issue in the great final judgment. This isfor many people one of the most frightening prospects regarding thef‘uturt.~, and well it might be for those who are apart from Christ andconstqlc~ntly will be judged to be among the unrighteous. For those whoare irl (:hrist, how&r, it is something to look forward to, for it willvindicate their lives. As WC study the final judgment, we should keep in

mind that it is not intended to ascertain our spiritual condition or status,for that is already known to God. Rather, it will manifest or make ourstatus public.l*

A Future Event

The final judgment will occur in the future. Of course, God has insome cases already made his judgment manifest, as when he took right-eous Enoch and Elijah to heaven to be with him, sent the destructiveflood upon the earth (Gen. 6-7), and destroyed Korah and those whoparticipated with him in the rebellion (Num. 16). A New Testamentexample is Gods striking down Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5: l-l 1).Friedrich Schelling, among others, maintained that the history of theworld is the judgment of the world, that, in other words, the events thatoccur within history are in effect a judgment upon the world. Yet this isnot the whole of what the Bible has to say about judgment. A definiteevent is to occur in the future. Jesus alluded to it in Matthew 11:24: “ButI tell you that it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for theland of Sodom than for you.” On another occasion he spoke clearly ofthe judgment which he would execute in connection with the futureresurrection (John 5:27-29). There is an extended picture of this judg-ment in Matthew 25:31-46. While preaching on the Areopagus Pauldeclared that God “has fixed a day on which he will judge the world inrighteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has givenassurance to all men by raising him from the dead” (Acts 17:31). LaterPaul argued before Felix “about justice and self-control and future judg-ment” (Acts 24~25). He wrote to the Remans, “But by your hard andimpenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day ofwrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed” (Rom. 2:5). Theauthor of the letter to the Hebrews put it clearly and directly: “It isappointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Heb.9:27). Other clear references include Hebrews 10:27; 2 Peter 3:7; andRevelation 20:11-15.

Scripture specifies that the judgment will occur after the secondcoming. Jesus said, “For the Son of man is to come with his angels in theglory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he hasdone” (Matt. 16:27). This idea is also found in Matthew 13:37-43; 24:29-35; and 25:31-46. Similarly, Paul wrote, “Therefore do not pronouncejudgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light

18. Gottlob Schrenk, 6LKC~l00h~, in Theological Dictionary of the New Tatument, cd.Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 10 wk. (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1964- 1976) vol. 2, p. 207.

1202 The Last Things

the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of theheart. Then every man will receive his commendation from God” (1 Cor.45).

Jesus Christ the Judge

Jesus pictured himself as sitting on a glorious throne and judging allnations (Matt. 25:31-33). Although God is spoken of as the judge inHebrews 12:23, it is clear from several other references that he delegatesthis authority to the Son. Jesus himself said, “The Father judges no one,but has given all judgment to the Son.. . and has given him authority toexecute judgment, because he is the Son of man” (John 5:22,27). Petertold the gathering in Cornelius’s house, “[Jesus] commanded us to preachto the people, and to testify that he is the one ordained by God to bejudge of the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42). Paul informed the Atheni-ans that God ‘has fixed a day on which he will judge the world inrighteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has givenassurance to all men by raising him from the dead.” And Paul wrote tothe Corinthians, “We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ,so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he hasdone in the body” (2 Cor. 5:lO). Second Timothy 4: 1 states that Christ isto judge the living and the dead.

It appears that believers will share in the judging. In Matthew 19:28and Luke 22:28-30 Jesus suggests that the disciples will judge the twelvetribes of Israel. We are also told that believers will sit on thrones andjudge the world (1 Cor. 6:2-3; Rev. 3:21; 20~4). While we are not told theexact details, Christ will apparently permit the saints to share in thiswork.

The Subjects of the Judgment

AU humans will be judged (Matt. 25:32; 2 Cor. 5:lO; Heb. 927). Paulwarns that “we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God” (Rom.14: 10). Every secret will be revealed; all that has ever occurred will beevaluated. Some have questioned whether the sins of believers will beincluded--that would seem to be unnecessary inasmuch as believershave been justified. But the statements concerning the review of sins areuniversal. Berkhof’s perspective on this matter is probably correct:“Scripture leads us to believe that [the sins of believers] will be [revealed],though they will, of course, be revealed as pardoned sin~.“~~

In addition, the evil angels will be judged at this time. Peter writes that

The Second Coming and Its Consequents 1203

“God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell[Tartarus] and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept untilthe judgment” (2 Peter 2:4). Jude 6 makes an almost identical statement.The good angels, on the other hand, will participate in the judgment bygathering together all who are to be judged (Matt. 13:41; 24:31).

The Basis of the Judgment

Those who appear will be judged in terms of their earthly lives.20 Paulsaid that we will all appear at the judgment, “so that each one mayreceive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body” (2 Cor.5:lO). Jesus said that at the resurrection all will “come forth, those whohave done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil,to the resurrection of judgment” (John 5:29). While one might infer fromMatthew 25:31-46 that it is the doing of good deeds that makes thedifference, Jesus indicated that some who claim and who even appear tohave done good deeds will be told to depart (Matt. 7:21-23).

The standard on the basis of which the evaluation will be made is therevealed will of God. Jesus said, “He who rejects me and does not receivemy sayings has a judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge onthe last day” (John 12:48). Even those who have not explicitly heard thelaw will be judged: ‘Au who have sinned without the law will also perishwithout the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged bythe law” (Rom. 2: 12).

The Finality of the Judgment

Once passed, the judgment will be permanent and irrevocable. Therighteous and the ungodly will be sent away to their respective finalplaces. There is no hint that the verdict can be changed. In concludinghis teaching about the last judgment, Jesus said that those on his lefthand “will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternallife” (Matt. 25:46).

Implications of the Second Coming and Its Consequents

1. History will not simply run its course, but under the guidance ofGod will come to a consummation. His purposes will be fi..&lled in theend.

19. Berkhof, S~stermtic Theo&v, p. 732.20. Floyd V. F&on, “The Second Epistle to the Corinthians,” in The Interpreter? Bible,

ed. George A. Buttrick (Nashville: Abingdon, 1978), vol. 10, p. 332.

1204 The Last Things

2. We as believers should watch for and work in anticipation of thesure return of the Lord.

3. Our earthly bodies will be transformed into something far better.The imperfections which we now know will disappear; our everlastingbodies will know no pain, illness, or death.

4. A time is coming when justice will be dispensed. Evil will be pun-ished, and faith and faithfulness rewarded.

5. Ln view of the certainty of the second coming and the finality of thejudgment which will follow, it is imperative that we act in accordancewith the will of God.

1.-

0580Millennial and Tribulational Views

Millennial ViewsPostmillennialismPremillennialismAmillennialismResolving the Issues

Tribulational ViewsPretribulationismPosttribulationismMediating PositionsResolving the Issues

0 ver the years there has been considerable discussion inChristian theology regarding the chronological relationship betweenChrist’s second coming and certain other events. In particular, this dis-cussion has involved two major questions. (1) Will there be a millennium,an earthly reign of Jesus Christ; and if so, will the second coming takeplace before or after that period? The view that there will be no earthlyreign of Christ is termed amiflennialism. The teaching that the return ofChrist will inaugurate a miUennium is termed premillennialism, while thebelief that the second coming will conclude a millennium is postmillen-

1205

1206 The Last Things

nialism. (2) Will Christ come to remove the church from the world beforethe great tribulation (pretribulationism), or will he return only after thetribulation (posttribulationism)? This second question is found primarilyin premillennialism. We shall examine in turn each of the millennial andthen the tribulational views.

Millennial Views

Although all three millennial positions have been held virtuallythroughout church history, at different times one or another has domi-nated. We will examine them in the order of their major period ofpopularity.

Postmillennialism

Postmillennialism rests on the belief that the preaching of the gospelwill be so successful that the world will be converted. The reign of Christ,the locus of which is human hearts, will be complete and universal. Thepetition, “Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven,” will be actualized.Peace will prevail and evil will be virtually banished. Then, when thegospel has fully taken effect, Christ will return. Basically, then, postmillen-nialism is an optimistic view.

The first three centuries of the church were probably dominated bywhat we would today call premillennialism, but in the fourth century anAfrican Donatist named Tyconius propounded a competitive view.’ Al-though Augustine was an archopponent of the Donatists, he adoptedTyconius’s view of the millennium. This interpretation was to dominateeschatological thinking throughout the Middle Ages. Augustine taughtthat the millennium does not lie in the future, but has already begun. Weare in the millennium. The thousand years began with Christ’s firstcoming. In support of this view, Augustine cited Mark 3:27: “But no onecan enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he firstbinds the strong man; then indeed he may plunder his house.” In Augus-tine’s understanding of this verse, the strong man is Satan and theplundered goods represent people who were formerly under his controlbut are now Christian. Satan was bound at the time of the first comingof Christ and will remain bound until the second coming. Since Satan istherefore unable to deceive the nations, the preaching of the gospel ishighly successful. Christ reigns on earth. At the end of this millennial

I. Traugott Hahn, Tyconius-Studien. Ein Beitrag ZUT Kirchen-und-Dogmen- 3. Adolf von Harnack, ‘Millennium,” in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th ed. (New York:geschichte des 4. Jahrhunderts (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1900; Aalen: Schilling, 1971 reprint). Scribner, 1883), vol. 16, pp. 3 14-18.

I Millennial and Tribulational Views 1207

period, however, Satan will be loosed for a short time before being finallysubdued.2

As we look at current conditions in the world and the church, it mayseem difficult to reconcile Augustine’s view with what is actually goingon. It is important to remember the context in which Augustine formu-lated and presented his view, however. Christianity had achieved unprece-dented political success. A series of circumstances had led to theconversion of the emperor Constantine in 312. With that event, Christi-anity was granted tolerance within the empire and became virtually theofficial religion. The church was entering into its inheritance. Its majoropposition, the Roman Empire, had virtually capitulated. While the prog-ress of the church would be gradual rather than sudden, it would besure. No dates were set for the completion of the millennium and thereturn of Christ, but it was assumed that they would come to pass aboutthe year le.3

With the*end of the first millennium of church history, it of coursebecame necessary to revise somewhat the details of postmillennialism.The millennium was no longer viewed as a period of a thousand years,but as the whole of church history. Postmillennialism was most popularduring periods in which the church appeared to be succeeding in its taskof winning the world. It came to particular popularity in the latter partof the nineteenth century. Bear in mind that this was a period of greateffectiveness in world missions as well as a time of concern about andprogress in social conditions. Consequently, it seemed reasonable toassume that the world would soon be reached for Christ.

As we have suggested, the major tenet of postmillennialism is thesuccessful spread of the gospel. This idea is based upon several passagesof Scripture. In the Old Testament, Psalms 47,72, and 100; Isaiah 45:22-25; and Hosea 2:23, for example, make it clear that all nations will cometo know God. In addition, Jesus said on several occasions that the gospelwould be preached universally prior to his second coming. A primeexample of this teaching is found in Matthew 24: 14. Inasmuch as theGreat Commission is to be carried out in his authority (Matt. 28:18-20), itis bound to succeed. Often the idea of the spread of the gospel includesthe concomitants of the gospel-transforming effects upon social condi-tions will follow from the conversion of large numbers of hearers. Insome cases, the belief in the spread of the kingdom has taken on asomewhat more secularized form, so that social transformation ratherthan individual conversions is considered the sign of the kingdom. For

2. Augustine Sermon 259.2.

120X The Last Things Millennial and Tribulational Views

example, the social-gospel movement in the late nineteenth centuryaimed at the Christianizing of the social order, culminating in a changeof the economic structure. Discrimination, injustice, and conflict wouldthen wither away, and wars would be a thing of the past. This form ofpostmillennialism was usually accompanied by a generalized concept ofdivine providence: God was seen as working outside the formal bounda-ries of the church. So on two occasions in the twentieth century, signifi-cant numbers of German Christians identified God’s working in the worldwith political movements of their time: Raiser Wilhelm’s war policy inthe teens, and then Hitler’s Naziism in the 1930s.4 Emphasizing ‘socialtransformation, liberals, insofar as they held a millennial view, weregenerally postmillennialists, but by no means were alI postmillennial&liberal. Many of them envisioned an unprecedented number of conver-sions, with the human race becoming a collection of regenerated individ-uals.5

basically optimistic view. Consequently, it has fared rather poorly in thetwentieth century. The convinced postmillennialist regards the distress-ing conditions of the twentieth century as merely a temporary fluctua-tion in the growth of the kingdom. They indicate that we are not as nearthe second coming as we had thought. This argument, however, has notproved persuasive to large numbers of theologians, pastors, and laypersons.7

Premillennialism

In postmillennial thought, the kingdom of God is viewed as a presentreality, here and now, rather than a future heavenly realm. Jesus’ parablesin Matthew 13 give us an idea of the nature of this kingdom. It is likeleaven, spreading gradually but surely throughout the whole. Its growthwill be extensive (it will spread throughout the entire world) and intensive(it will become dominant). Its growth will be so gradual that the onset ofthe millennium may be scarcely noticed by some. The progress may notbe uniform; indeed, the coming of the kingdom may well proceed by aseries of crises. Postmillennialists are able to accept what appear to besetbacks, since they believe in the ultimate triumph of the gospel.6

Premillennialism is committed to the concept of an earthly reign byJesus Christ of approximately one thousand years (or at least a substan-tial period of time). Unlike postmillennialism, premillennialism sees Christas physically present during this time; it believes that he will returnpersonally and bodily to commence the millennium. This being the case,the millennium must be seen as still in the future.

In the postmillennial view, the millennium will be an extended period,but not necessarily a literal one thousand years. Indeed, the postmillen-nial view of the millennium is frequently based less upon Revelation 20,where the thousand-year period and the two resurrections are men-tioned, than upon other passages of Scripture. The very gradualness ofthe coming of the kingdom makes the length of the millennium difficultto calculate. The point is that the millennium will be a prolonged periodof time during which Christ, even though physically absent, will reignover the earth. One essential feature which distinguishes postmillennial-ism from the other millennial views is that it expects conditions tobecome better, rather than worse, prior to Christ’s return. Thus it is a

Premillennialism was probably the dominant millennial view duringthe early period of the church. Christians of the first three centuries hada strong expectation of an early return of Christ. Instead of holding to agradual growth of the kingdom, they anticipated that the eschaton wouldbe inaugurated by a cataclysmic event. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, andseveral other significant early theologians held to this view.8 Much of themillennialism of this period-often termed “chiliasm,” from the Greekword for “thousand’‘-had a rather sensuous flavor. The millenniumwould be a time of great abundance and fertility, of a renewing of theearth and building of a glorified Jerusalem.9 This tended to repulse theAlexandrian school of Clement, Origen, and Dionysius. A major factor inthe decline of chiliasm was Augustine’s view of the millennium, whichwe discussed earlier. In the Middle Ages, premillennialism became quiterare. Often it was mystical sects which perpetuated it.

4. Karl Barth, How I Changed My Mind (Richmond: John Knox, 1966), pp. 2 1,45; TheChurch und the Political Problem of Our Lky (New York: Scribner, 1939).

5. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), vol. 3, pp.BOO- I 2.

About the middle of the nineteenth century, premillennialism beganto grow in popularity in conservative circles. This was partly due to thefact that liberals, insofar as they had a millennial view, were postmillen-nial&s, and some conservatives considered anything associated withliberalism to be suspect. The growing popularity of the dispensationalsystem of interpretation and eschatology also lent impetus to premillen-nialism. It has considerable adherence among conservative Baptists, Pen-tecostal groups, and independent fundamentalist churches.

7. Ibid., pp. 132-33.

6. Loraine Boettner, “Postmillennialism,” in The Meaning of the Millennium, ed.Robert G. Clousc (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity, 1977), pp. 120-2 1.

8. Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 80. 1.9. A. J. Visser, “A Bird’+Eye View of Ancient Christian Eschatology,” Numen 14 (1967):

10-l 1.

I209

I210 The Last Things

The key passage for premillennialism is Revelation 20:4-6:

Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom judgmentwas committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded fortheir testimony to Jesus and for the word of God, and who had notworshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on theirforeheads or their hands. They came to life, and reigned with Christ athousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until thethousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. Blessed andholy is he who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second deathhas no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and theyshall reign with him a thousand years.

Premillennialists observe that here is evidence of a thousand-year periodand two resurrections, one at the beginning and the other at the end.Premillennialists insist on a literal and consistent interpretation of thispassage. Since the same verb-Z[qacuv-is used in reference to bothresurrections, they must be of the same type. The amillennialist, or forthat matter the postmillennialist, is usually forced to say that they are ofdifferent types. The usual explanation is that the first resurrection is aspiritual resurrection, that is, regeneration, while the second is a literal,physical, or bodily resurrection. Thus those who take part in the firstresurrection will undergo the second as well. PremilIennialists, however,reject this interpretation as untenable. George Beasley-Murray observesthat it attributes confusion and chaotic thinking to the biblical author.lOHenry Alford a century ago contended that if one resurrection is aspiritual coming to life and the other a physical coming to life, “thenthere is an end of all signilicance in language, and Scripture is wiped outas a definite testimony to anything.“ii George Ladd says that if Qacrvmeans bodily resurrection in verse 5, it must mean bodily resurrectionin verse 4; if it does not, “we have lost control of exegesis.“12

All of these men are sensitive to the fact that context can alter themeanings of words. They note, however, that in this case the two usagesof &XYV occur together. And there is nothing in the context to suggestany shift in meaning. Consequently, what we have here are two resurrec-tions of the same type which involve two different groups at an intervalof a thousand years. It also appears from the context that those who

IO. George R. Beasley-Murray, “The Revelation,” in The New Bible CommentaryRevised, ed. Donald Guthrie and J. A. Motyer (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), p. 1306.

I 1. Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers (Chicago: Moody, n.d.), pp.1928-29.

12. George E. Ladd, “Revelation 20 and the Millennium,” Review and Expositor 57,no. 2 (April 1960): 169.

Millennial and Tribulational Views 1211

participate in the first resurrection are not involved in the second. It is“the rest of the dead” (oi AOLTTO~ T&V veKp&) who do not come to life untilthe end of the thousand years. Although it is not said that they will cometo life at that point, the implication is that they will. There is an obviouscontrast between those involved in the second resurrection and those inthe first.

It is also important to observe the nature of the millennium. Whereasthe postmillennialist thinks that the millennium is being introduced grad-ually, perhaps almost imperceptibly, the premillennialist envisions a sud-den, cataclysmic event. In the premillennialist view, the rule of JesusChrist will be complete from the very beginning of the millennium. Evilwill have been virtually eliminated.

According to premillennialism, then, the millennium will not be anextension of trends already at work within the world. Instead, there willbe a rather sharp break from conditions as we now find them. Forexample, there will be worldwide peace. This is a far cry from the presentsituation, where worldwide peace is a rare thing indeed, and the trenddoes not seem to be improving. The universal harmony will not berestricted to humans. Nature, which has been “groaning in travail,” await-ing its redemption, will be freed from the curse of the fall (Rom. 8:19-23). Even animals will live in harmony with one another (Isa. 11:6-7;65:25), and the destructive forces of nature will be calmed. The saintswill rule together with Christ in this millennium. Although the exactnature of their reign is not spelled out, they will, as a reward for theirfaithfulness, participate with him in the glory which is his.

All premillennialists also anticipate that Israel will have a special placein the millennium. They disagree, however, as to the nature of that specialplace. Dispensational&s hold to a continuing unconditional covenant ofGod with national Israel, so that when God has completed his dealingswith the church, he will return to his relations with national Israel. Jesuswill literally sit upon David’s throne and rule the world from Israel. All ofthe prophecies and promises regarding Israel will be fulfilled within themillennium, which will therefore have a markedly Jewish character.Nondispensationalists put much less emphasis upon national Israel, hold-ing instead that Israel’s special place, being spiritual in nature, will befound within the church. Israel will be converted in large numbers duringthe millennium.13

Premillennialists also hold that the millennium will be a tremendouschange from what immediately precedes it, namely, the great tribulation.The tribulation will be a time of unprecedented trouble and turmoil,

13. George E. Ladd, “Israel and the Church,” Evangelical Quarterly 36, no. 4 (October-December 1964): 206-l 3.

1 2 1 2 The Last Things

including cosmic disturbances, persecution, and great suffering. Whilepremillennial&s disagree as to whether the church will be present duringthe tribulation, they agree that the world situation will be at its veryworst just before Christ comes to establish the milletium, which willbe, by contrast, a period of peace and righteousness.

Amillennialism

Literally, amillennialism is the idea that there will be no rnillennium,no earthly reign of Christ. The great final judgment will immediatelyfollow the second coming and issue directly in the final states of therighteous and the wicked. Amillennialism is a simpler view than either ofthe others that we have been considering. Its advocates maintain that itis built on a number of relatively clear eschatological passages, whereaspremillennialism is based primarily upon a single passage, and an ob-scure one at that.

Despite the simplicity of amillennialism and the clarity of its centraltenet, it is in many ways difficult to grasp. This is due in part to the factthat, its most notable feature being negative, its positive teachings arenot always expounded. It has sometimes been distinguished more for itsrejection of premillennialism than for its affirmations. Also, in dealingwith the very troublesome passage of Revelation 20:4-6, amillennial.istshave come up with a rather wide variety of explanations. One wondersat times whether these explanations reflect the same basic view or quitedifferent understandings of eschatological and apocalyptic literature.Finally, it has not always been possible to distinguish amillennialism frompostmillennialism, since they share many common features. Indeed, var-ious theologians who have not addressed the particular issues whichserve to distinguish the two views from one another-among them areAugustine, John Calvin, and B. B. Warfield-have been claimed as ances-tors by both camps. What the two views share is a belief that the“thousand years” of Revelation 20 is to be taken symbolically. Both oftenhold as well that the millennium is the church age. Where they differ isthat the postmillennialist, unlike the amillennialist, holds that the millen-nium involves an earthly reign of Christ.

In light of the problems one encounters in trying to grasp amillennial-ism, its history is difficult to trace. Some historians of doctrine havefound amillennialism in the Epistle of Barnabas,14 but this is disputed byothers. It is clear that Augustine, whether or not he should be classifiedas an amillennialist, contributed to the formulation of the view by sug-

14. Diedrich Kromminga, The Millennium in the Church: Studies in the History ofChrist& Chiliasm (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1945), p. 40.

Millennial and Tribulational Views 1 2 1 3

gesting that the figure of one thousand years is primarily symbolic ratherthan literal. It is likely that postmillennialism and amillennialism simplywere not differentiated for much of the first nineteen centuries of thechurch. When postmillennialism began to fade in popularity in the twen-tieth century, amillennialism was generally substituted for it, since amil-lennialism is much closer to postmillennialism than is premillennialism.Consequently, amillennialism has enjoyed its greatest popularity in theperiod since World War L

When amillennialists deal with Revelation 20, they usually have thewhole book in view. They see the Book of Revelation as consisting ofseveral sections, seven being the number most frequently mentioned.These several sections do not deal with successive periods of time; rather,they are recapitulations of the same period, the period between Christ’sfirst and second comings. 15 It is believed that in each of these sectionsthe author picks up the same themes and elaborates them. If this is thecase, Revelation 20 does not refer solely to the last period in the historyof the church, but is a special perspective upon the entire history of thechurch.

Amillennialists also remind us that the Book of Revelation as a wholeis very symbolic. They note that even the most rabid premillennialists donot take everything in the Book of Revelation literally. The bowls, seals,and trumpets, for example, are usually interpreted as symbols. By asimple extension of this principle amillennialists contend that the “thou-sand years” of Revelation 20 might not be literal either. In addition, theypoint out that the millennium is mentioned nowhere else in Scripture.16

The question arises, If the figure of a thousand years is to be takensymbolically rather than literally, of what is it a symbol? Many amillen-&lists utilize War-field’s interpretation: “The sacred number seven incombination with the equally sacred number three forms the number ofholy perfection, ten, and when this ten is cubed into a thousand the seerhas said all he could say to convey to our minds the idea of absolutecompleteness.“17 The references to a “thousand years” in Revelation 20,then, convey the idea of perfection or completeness. In verse 2 the figurerepresents the completeness of Christ’s victory over Satan. In verse 4 itsuggests the perfect glory and joy of the redeemed in heaven at thepresent time.18

15. Floyd Hamilton, The Basis of Millennial Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1942), pp.130-31.

16. William Hendriksen, More than Conquerors (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1939), pp. 1 l-64; Anthony Hoekema, “Amtiennialism,” in Meaning of the Millennium, pp. 156-59.

17. Benjamin B. Warfield, “The Mtiennium and the Apocalypse,” in Biblical Doctrines(New York: Oxford University, 1929), p. 654.

18. W. J. Grier, “Christian Hope and the Millennium,” Christianity Today, I3 October1958, p. 19.

1214 The Last Things

The major exegetical problem for amillennialism, however, is not theone thousand years, but the two resurrections. Among the variety ofamillennial opinions about the two resurrections, the one common factoris a denial of the premillennial contention that John is speaking of twophysical resurrections involving two different groups. The most commonamillennial interpretation is that the first resurrection is spiritual and thesecond is bodily or physical. One who has argued this at some length isRay Summers. From Revelation 20~6 (“Blessed and holy is he who sharesin the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power”) heconcludes that the first resurrection is a victory over the second death.Since it is customary in eschatological discussions to consider the seconddeath to be spiritual rather than physical, the first resurrection must bespiritual as well. The first death, which is not mentioned but implied,must surely be physical death. If it is to be correlated with the secondresurrection as the second death is with the first resurrection, the secondresurrection must be physical. The first resurrection, then, is the newbirth those who experience it will not come into condemnation. Thesecond resurrection is the bodily or physical resurrection which weusually have in view when we use the word remrrection. All those whoparticipate in the first resurrection also participate in the second resur-rection, but not all of those experiencing the second resurrection willhave partaken of the first.19

The most common premillennial criticism of the view that the firstresurrection is spiritual arid the second physical is that it is inconsistentin interpreting identical terms (i[qnav) in the same context. Some amil-lennialists have accepted this criticism and have sought to develop aposition in which the two resurrections are of the same type. JamesHughes has constructed such a view. He accepts the premillennialistpoint that the first and second resurrections must be understood in thesame sense.2o He suggests, however, a logical possibility which the premil-lennialists seem to have overlooked: both resurrections may be spiritual.

Hughes contends that Revelation 204-6 is a description of disembod-ied souls in the intermediate state. He cites as evidence the fact thatthose who are involved in the first resurrection are termed “souls” (v. 4).Further, he argues that Z&XXIV should be interpreted not as an ingressiveaorist (“they came to life”), but as a constative aorist (“they lived andreigned with Christ a thousand years”). He concludes that the firstresurrection is the ascension of the just soul to heaven to reign with

19. Ray Summers, “Revelation 20: An Interpretation,” Review and Expositor 57, no. 2(April 1960): 176.

20. James A. Hughes, “Revelation 20:4-6 and the Question of the Millennium,” West-minster Theological Journal 35 (1973): 300.

Millennial and Tribulational Views 1215

Christ; there is nothing here about the body coming to life. Those whoparticipate in this resurrection are the ‘living” dead. The “dead” dead, bycontrast, have no part in the hrst resurrection and will suffer the second(spiritual) death. Their souls survive the first (physical) death, but willnever come to life. Though both groups are physically dead, the formerare spiritually alive during the thousand years; the latter are not. Whilesome commentators have inferred from verse 5 (“the rest of the deaddid not come to life until the thousand years were ended”) that the“dead” dead will come to life at the end of the millennium, Hughesrenders the clause in question, “They did not live during the thousandyears, nor thereafter.” And what, then, of the second resurrection?Hughes regards it as highly significant that the term “second resurrec-tion,” which pertains to the survival of just and unjust souls during theintermediate state, is not to be found in Revelation 20. Unlike the f&tresurrection, then, the second resurrection is virtually hypothetical. Likethe f&t, however, it is spiritual in nature. Thus, Hughes has managed tointerpret the two occurrences of <[vaav consistently.21

Another feature of amillennialism is a more general conception ofprophecy, especially Old Testament prophecy, than is found in premillen-nialism. We have noted that premillennialists tend to interpret biblicalprophecy quite literally. On the other hand, amillennialists frequentlytreat prophecies as historical or symbolic rather than futuristic. As ageneral rule, prophecy occupies a much less important place in amillen-nial than in prernillennial thought.

Finally, we should observe that amillennialism usually does not displaythe optimism that is typically found in postmillennialism. There may bea belief that preaching of the gospel will be successful, but great successin this regard is not necessary to the amillennial scheme, since no literalreign of Christ, no coming of the kingdom before the coming of the King,is expected. This has made the amillennial view more credible thanpostmillennialism in the twentieth century. This is not to say that amillen-nialism is like premillennialism in expecting an extreme deterioration ofconditions before the second coming. Yet there is nothing in amillennial-ism to preclude such a possibility. And because no millennium willprecede the second coming, the Lord’s return may be at hand. For themost part, however, amillennialists do not engage in the type of eagersearching for signs of the second coming that characterizes much ofpremillennialism.

Resolving the Issues

We must now address the question of which millennial view to adopt.The issues are large and complex, but on close analysis can be reduced

2 1. Ibid., pp. 299-300.

1216 The Last Things

to a comparative few. We have noted in the course of this treatise thattheology, like other disciplines, is often unable to find one view which isconclusively supported by all of the data. What must be done in suchsituations is to find the view which has fewer difficulties than do thealternatives. That is the approach we will follow here.

The postmillennial view has much less support at the present timethan it did in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Thisshould not in itself persuade us to reject the position. We must, however,seek the reasons for the decline in postmillennialism, for they may bedeterminative of our conclusions. Here we should note that the optimismof postmillennialism regarding gospel proclamation seems somewhatunjustified. There has been a decline in evangelistic and missionarysuccess. In parts of the world the percentage of the population actuallypracticing the Christian faith is very small. Further, many Communistand Muslim countries are now closed to Christian missionary endeavorof a conventional type. On the other hand, we must not be oblivious tothe fact that in parts of the world, notably Africa and South America,Christianity is thriving, and is beginning to approach majority status.Who can tell what reversals of fortune lie in store for the preaching ofthe gospel?

There are also strong biblical grounds for rejecting postmillennialism.Jesus’ teaching regarding great wickedness and a cooling off of the faithof many before his return seems to conflict quite sharply with postmillen-nial optimism. That a clear depiction of an earthly reign of Christ withouthis physical presence is nowhere found in Scripture seems to be anothermajor weakness of this position.

This leaves us with a choice between amillennialism and premillenni-alism. The issue comes down to the biblical references to the millen-nium-are they sufficient grounds for adopting the more complicatedpremillennial view rather than the simpler amillennial conception? It issometimes contended that the whole premillennial conception restsupon a single passage of Scripture, and that no doctrine should be basedupon a single passage. But if one view can account for a specific refer-ence better than can another, and both views explain the rest of Scriptureabout equally well, then the former view must certainly be judged moreadequate than the latter.

We note here that there are no biblical passages with which premillen-nialism cannot cope, or which it cannot adequately explain. We haveseen, on the other hand, that the reference to two resurrections (Rev. 20)gives amillennialists difhculty. Their explanations that we have here twodifferent types of resurrection or two spiritual resurrections strain theusual principles of hermeneutics. The premillennialist case appearsstronger at this point.

Millennial and Tribulational Views 1217

Nor is the premillennialist interpretation based upon only one passagein the Bible. Intimations of it are found in a number of places. Forexample, Paul writes, “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all bemade alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at hiscoming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when hedelivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule andevery authority and power” (1 Cor. 1522-24). Paul uses the adverbs &ELT(Y(v. 23) and &Y (v. 24), which indicate temporal sequence. He could haveused the adverb ~67~ to indicate concurrent events, but he did not do~0.~~ It appears that just as the first coming and resurrection of Christwere distinct events separated by time, so will there be an intervalbetween the second coming and the end.23 We should also observe thatwhile the two resurrections are spoken of explicitly only in Revelation 20,there are other passages which hint at either a resurrection of a selectgroup (Luke 1414; 20~35; 1 Cor. 1523; Phil. 3: 11; 1 Thess. 4: 16) or aresurrection in two stages (Dan. 12:2; John 529). In Philippians 3:11, forexample, Paul speaks of his hope of attaining “the resurrection from thedead.” Literally, the phrase reads “the out-resurrection out from amongthe dead ones” (+ i&~v&a~~a~v +jv <K VeKp&). Note in particular theprefixed preposition and the plural. These texts fit well with the conceptof two resurrections. Accordingly, we judge the premillennial view to bemore adequate than amillennialism.

Tribulational Views

We come now to the issue of the relationship of Christ’s return to thecomplex of events known as the great tribulation. In theory, all premillen-nialists hold that there will be a great disturbance of seven years’ dura-tion (that figure need not be taken literally) prior to Christ’s coming. Thequestion is whether there will be a separate coming to remove the churchfrom the world prior to the great tribulation or whether the church willgo through the tribulation and be united with the Lord only afterward.The view that Christ will take the church to himself prior to the tribula-tion is called pretribulationism; the view that he will take the churchafter the tribulation is called posttribulationism. There are also certainmediating positions which we will mention briefly at the conclusion ofthe chapter. In practice, these distinctions are drawn only by premillen-

22. Joseph H. Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testumenf (Edinburgh:T. and T. Clark, 1955), pp. 188, 23 1, 629.

23. George E. Ladd, Crucial Vuestions About the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1952), p. 178.

1218 The Last Things IMillennial and Tribulational Views 1219

nialists, who tend to devote more attention to the details of the end timesthan do the advocates of either postmillennialism or amillennialism.

Pretribulationism

There are several distinctive ideas held by pretribulationists. The firstconcerns the nature of the tribulation. It will indeed be a great ttibula-tion. Whereas some other eschatologists emphasize the difficulties andpersecutions experienced by the church throughout its history, pretribu-lationists stress the uniqueness of the tribulation. It will be quite unpar-alleled within history. It will be a period of transition concluding God’sdealings with the Gentiles and preparing for the millennium and theevents which will transpire therein. The tribulation is not to be under-stood as in any sense a time for disciplining believers or purifying thechurch.

A second major idea of pretribulationism is the rapture of the church.Christ will come at the beginning of the great tribulation (or just prior toit, actually) to remove the church from the world. This coming in a sensewill be secret. No unbelieving eye will observe it. The rapture is picturedin 1 Thessalonians 4:17: “Then we who are alive, who are left, shall becaught up together with [the dead in Christ] in the clouds to meet theLord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord.” Note that in therapture Christ will not descend all the way to earth, as he will when hecomes with the church at the end of the tribulation.*4

Pretribulationism, then, maintains that there will be two phases inChrist’s coming, or one could even say two comings. There will also bethree resurrections. The first will be the resurrection of the righteousdead at the rapture, for Paul teaches that believers who are alive at thetime will not precede those who are dead. Then at the end of thetribulation there will be a resurrection of those saints who have diedduring the tribulation. Finally, at the end of the millennium, there will bea resurrection of unbelievers.*5

This all means that the church will be absent during the tribulation.That is the point of the rapture, to deliver the church from the tribulation.We can expect deliverance because Paul promised the Thessaloniansthat they would not experience the wrath which God will pour out uponunbelievers: “For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtainsalvation through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess. 59); “Jesus . . . deliversus from the wrath to come” (1 Thess. 1:lO).

24. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question (Findlay, Ohio: Dunham, 1957), pp. 101,198.

25. Charles L. Feinberg, Premillennialivn or Amillennialism? The Premillennial andAmillennial Systems of Interpretation Analyzed and Compared (Grand Rapids: Zonder-van, 1936), p. 146.

But what of the references in Matthew 24 which indicate that someof the elect will be present during the tribulation? We must understandthat the disciples’ asking what would be the sign of Jesus’ coming and ofthe end of the age (243; cf. Acts 1:6) occurred within a Jewish framework.And accordingly, Jesus’ discussion here pertains primarily to the futureof Israel. It is significant that the Gospel uses the general term elect

rather than “chursh,” “body of Christ,” or any similar expression. It iselect Jews, not the church, who will be present during the tribulation.This distinction between Israel and the church is a determinative andcrucial part of pretribulationism, which is closely allied with dispensa-tionalism. The tribulation is viewed as being the transition from God’sdealing primarily with the church to his reestablishing relationship withhis original chosen people, national Israel.26

There is, finally, within pretribulationism a strong emphasis that theLord’s return is irnmi.nentF7 Since his return will precede the tribulation,nothing remains to be fulfilled prior to the rapture. Indeed, dispensation-alism holds that all prophetic Scripture applying to the church wasfuElled in the first century. Moreover, some general antecedents of theeschaton can certainly be seen today: the faith of many is growing coldand wickedness is increasing. (In actuality, these are antecedents ofChrist’s coming at the end of the tribulation. That some of them arealready in place suggests a later increase in these phenomena.) Hiscoming for the church, then, could occur at any time, even within thenext instant.

Jesus urged watchfulness upon his hearers, since they did not knowthe time of his return (Matt. 25: 13). The parable of the ten virgins conveysthis message. Just as in the time of Noah, there will be no warning signs(Matt. 24:36-39). The wicked knew nothing until the flood came and tookthem away. The coming of the Lord will be like a thief in the night (Matt.2443). Or like the master who returns at an unexpected time (Matt.2445-51). There will be sudden separation. Two men will be working inthe field; two women will be grinding at the mill. In each case, one willbe taken and the other left. What clearer depiction of the rapture couldthere be? Since it can occur at any moment, watchfulness and diligentactivity are very much in order.28

There is another basis for the belief that Christ’s return is imminent.

26. E. Schuyler English, Re-thinking the Rapture: An Examination of What the Scrip-tures Teach as to the Time of the Translation of the Church in Relation to the Tribulation(Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux, 1954), pp. 100-O 1.

27. Walvoord, Rapture Question, pp. 75-82.28. Gordon Lewis, “Biblical Evidcncc for Pretribulationism,” Bibliotheca Sacra 125

( 1968): 2 16-26.

1220 The Last Things

The church can have a blessed hope (Titus 2:13) only if the next majorevent to transpire is the coming of Christ. If the Antichrist and the greattribulation were the next items on the eschatological agenda, Paul wouldhave told the church to expect suffering, persecution, anguish. But in-stead he instructs the Thessalonians to comfort one another with thefact of Christ’s second coming (1 Thess. 418). Since the next event, towhich the church is to look forward with hopeful anticipation, is thecoming of Christ for the church, there is nothing to prevent it fromhappening at any time.29

Finally, pretribulationism maintains that there will be at least twojudgments. The church will be judged at the time of the rapture. It isthen that rewards for faithfulness will be handed out. The church willnot be involved, however, in the separation of the sheep and goats at theend of the millennium. Its status will have already been determined.

Posttribulationism

Posttribulationists maintain that the coming of Christ for his churchwill not take place until the conclusion of the great tribulation. Theyavoid use of the term rupture because (1) it is not a biblical expressionand (2) it suggests that the church will escape or be delivered from thetribulation, a notion which runs contrary to the essence of posttribula-tionism.

A first feature of posttribulationism is a less literal interpretation of theevents of the last times than is found in pretribulationism.30 For instance,while pretribulationists take the word yjzq (shabzuz’) in Daniel 9:27 to bean indication that the great tribulation will be literally seven years induration, most posttribulationists hold merely that the tribulation willlast a substantial period of time. Similarly, pretribulationists generallyhave a concrete conception of the millennium; in their view, many proph-ecies will be literally fulfilled within the thousand-year period. Indeed, itis to be inaugurated when Christ’s feet literally stand upon the Mount ofOlives (Zech. 14:4). The posttribulationist’s understanding of the millen-nium is much more generalized in nature; for example, it will not neces-sarily be one thousand years in length.

According to posttribulationism, the church will be present during andexperience the great tribulation. The term elect in Matthew 24 (after thetribulation, the angels will gather the elect-w. 29-31) should be under-stood in the light of its usage elsewhere in Scripture, where it means

29. John F. Walvoord, The Return of the Lord (Findlay, Ohio: Dunham, 19X), p. 51.30. George E. Ladd, “Historic Premillennialism,” in Meaning of the Millennium, pp.

18-27.

Millennial and Tribulational Views 1221

“believers.” Since Pentecost, the term elect has denoted the church. TheLord will preserve the church during, but not spare it from, the tribula-tion.

Postmillennialists draw a distinction between the wrath of God andthe tribulation. The wrath (dpyrj) of God is spoken of in Scripture ascoming upon the wicked-he who does not obey the Son shall not seelife, but the wrath of God rests upon him” (John 3:36); “the wrath of Godis revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of menwho by their wickedness suppress the truth” (Rom. 1: 18; see also 2 Thess.1:s; Rev. 6:16-17; 1410; 16:19; 1915). On the other hand, believers will notundergo the wrath of God-”we [shall] be saved by [Christ] from thewrath of God” (Rom. 59); “Jesus . . . delivers us from the wrath to come”(1 Thess. 1: 10); “God has not destined us for wrath” (1 Thess. 5:9).31Scripture makes it clear, however, that believers will experience tribula-tion. The overwhelming majority of the occurrences of the noun BA~+~S

and the corresponding verb t%i/?w have reference to tribulation whichsaints endure. The noun is used to denote persecution of the saints in thelast times (Matt. 249, 2 1, 29; Mark 13: 19, 24; Rev. 7: 14). This is not God’swrath, but the wrath of Satan, Antichrist, and the wicked against God’speople.32

Tribulation has been the experience of the church throughout theages. Jesus said, “In the world you have tribulation” (John 16:33). Othersignificant references are Acts 1422; Romans 5:3; 1 Thessalonians 3:3;1 John 2: 18, 22; 43; and 2 John 7. While posttribulationists do not deny adistinction between tribulation in general and the great tribulation, theybelieve that the difference is one of degree only, not of kind. Since thechurch has experienced tribulation throughout its history, it would notbe surprising if the church also experiences the great tribulation.

Posttribulationists acknowledge that Scripture speaks of believerswho will escape or be kept from the impending trouble. In Luke 21:36,for example, Jesus tells his disciples, “But watch at all times, praying thatyou may have strength to escape all these things that will take place, andto stand before the Son of man.” The word here is &#+q which means“to escape out of the midst of.” A similar reference is found in Revelation3: 10: “Because you have kept my word of patient endurance, I will keepyou from the hour of trial which is coming on the whole world, to trythose who dwell upon the earth.” The preposition translated “from” (6~)actually means “out from the midst of.” Posttribulationists argue, then,that the church will be kept from the midst of the tribulation, not that it

3 1. George E. Ladd, The Blessed Hope (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), p. 122; RobertH. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), pp. 48-49.

32. Gundry, Church and the Tribulation, p. 49.

1 2 2 2 The Last Things

will be kept away from the tribulation, which would ordinarily requirethe preposition ai& .33 In this respect, we are reminded of the experienceof the Israelites during the plagues on Egypt.

Of additional significance in Revelation 3:lO is the verb rqpkw (“keep”).When a situation of danger is in view, it means “to guard.” It appearswith the preposition E)K in only one other place in the New Testament,John 17: 15: “I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world,but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one.” Here rqpr’w iscontrasted with &PO, which means “to lift, raise up, or remove.” Thelatter verb very accurately pictures what the pretribulationist holds Jesuswill do with the church at the time of the rapture. To be sure, Jesus hereis talking about the situation of his followers in the period immediatelyfollowing his departure from earth, not the tribulation. The point, how-ever, is that if John had desired to teach in Revelation 3: 10 that Jesuswould “rapture” the church, the verb crlppw was certainly available. Theapostle apparently had in mind here what he did in the latter half ofJohn 17: 15, a guarding of believers from the present danger rather thana deliverance of them from the presence of such danger.34

The posttribulationist also has a different understanding of Paul’sreference in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 to our meeting the Lord in the air. Thepretribulationist maintains that this event is the rapture; Christ will comesecretly for the church, catching believers up with him in the clouds andtaking them to heaven until the end of the tribulation. Posttribulationistslike George Ladd, however, in light of the usage of the term &&vrqars(“to meet”) elsewhere in Scripture, disagree. There are only two otherundisputed occurrences of this word in the New Testament (Matt. 27~32is textually suspect). One of these references is in the parable of the wiseand foolish virgins, an explicitly eschatological parable. When the bride-groom comes, the announcement is made, “Behold, the bridegroom!Come out to meet [&&~r)a~] him” (Matt. 256). What does the wordsignify in this situation? The virgins do not go out to meet the bridegroomand then depart with him. Rather, they go out to meet him and thenaccompany him back to the wedding banquet. The other occurrence ofthe word (Acts 28:lS) is in a noneschatological historical narrative. Pauland his party were coming to Rome. A group of the believers in Rome,hearing of their approach, went out to the Forum of Appius and ThreeTaverns to meet (&T&VT~UK) them. This encouraged Paul, and the groupthen continued with him back to Rome. On the basis of these usages,Ladd argues that the word &&V~~CTLS suggests a welcoming party thatgoes out to meet someone on the way and accompanies him back to

33. Ibid., p. 55.34. Ibid., pp. 58-59.

Millennial and Tribulational Views 1223

where they came from. So our meeting the Lord in the air is not a caseof being caught away, but of meeting him and then immediately comingwith him to earth as part of his triumphant entourage. It is the church,not the Lord, that will turn around at the meeting.35

Posttribulationists have a less complex understanding of the last thingsthan do their pretribulational counterparts. For example, there is inposttribulationism only one second coming. Since there is no interludebetween the coming of Christ for the church and the end of the tribula-tion, there is no need for an additional resurrection of believers. Thereare only two resurrections: (1) the resurrection of believers at the end ofthe tribulation and the beginning of the millennium, and (2) the resurrec-tion of the ungodly at the end of the millennium.

,

Posttribulationists also see the complex of events at the end as havinga basic unity. They believe that this complex of events is imminent,although they usually do not mean that the coming itself is imminent inthe sense that it could occur at any moment. They prefer to speak of thesecond coming as impending. j6 Their blessed hope is not an expectationthat believers will be removed from the earth before the great tribulation,but rather a confidence that the Lord will protect and keep believersregardless of what may come.37

Mediating Positions

Because there are difficulties attaching to both pretribulationism andposttribulationism, a number of mediating positions have been created.Three major varieties may be noted. The most common is the midtribu-lational view. This holds that the church will go through the less severepart (usually the first half, or three-and-a-half years) of the tribulation,but then will be removed from the world.38 In one formulation of thisview, the church will experience tribulation but be removed before thewrath of God is poured out. A second type of mediating position is thepartial-rapture view. This holds that there will be a series of raptures.Whenever a portion of believers are ready, they will be removed fromearth.j9 The third mediating position is imminent posttribulationism.

35. Ladd, Blessed Hope, pp. 58-59.36. Gundry, Church and the Tribulation, pp. 29-43.37. Ladd, Blessed Hope, p. 13.38. James Oliver Buswell, Jr., A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Grand

Rapids: Zondervan, 1962-63); Norman B. Harrison, The End Re-thinking the Revelation(Minneapolis: Harrison, 1941), p. 118.

39. Robert Govett, The Saints’ Rapture to the Presence of the Lord Jesus (London:Nisbet, 1852); George H. Lang, The Revelation of Jesus Christ: Select Studies (London:Oliphant, 1945).

1 2 2 4 The Last Things

While the return of Christ will not take place until after the tribulation, itcan be expected at any moment, for the tribulation may already beoccurring.4o None of these mediating positions has had large numbers ofproponents, particularly in recent years. Accordingly, we will not dealwith them in detail.41

Resohdng the Issues

When all considerations are evaluated, there are several reasons whythe posttribulational position emerges as the more probable:

1. The pretribulational position involves several distinctions whichseem rather artificial and lacking in biblical support. The division of thesecond coming into two stages, the postulation of three resurrections,and the sharp separation of national Israel and the church are difficultto sustain on biblical grounds. The pretribulational view that the proph-ecies concerning national Israel will be fulfilled apart from the churchand that, accordingly, the millennium will have a decidedly Jewish char-acter cannot be easily reconciled with the biblical depictions of thefundamental changes which have taken place with the introduction ofthe new covenant.

2. Several specifically eschatological passages are better interpreted onposttribulational grounds. These passages include the indications thatelect individuals will be present during the tribulation (Matt. 2429-31)but will be protected from its severity (Rev. 3:10), descriptions of thephenomena which will accompany the appearing of Christ, and thereference to the meeting in the air (1 Thess. 417).

3. The general tenor of biblical teaching fits better the posttribulationalview. For example, the Bible is replete with warnings about trials andtestings which believers will undergo. It does not promise removal fromthese adversities, but ability to endure and overcome them.

This is not to say that there are no difficulties with the posttribulationalposition. For example, there is in posttribulationism relatively little theo-logical rationale for the millennium. It seems to be somewhat superflu-OUS.~* But all in all, the preponderance of evidence favors post-tribulationism.

40. J. Barton Payne, The Imminent Appearing of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1962).

4 1. The reader who wishes a more thorough examination of these positions is directedto Millard J. Erickson, Contemporary Options in Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977),pp. 163-81.

42. See, however, George E. Ladd, “The Revelation of Christ’s Glory,” ChristianityToday, 1 September 1958, p. 14.

590Final States

Final State of the RighteousThe Term “Heaven”The Nature of HeavenOur Life in Heaven: Rest, Worship, and ServiceIssues Regarding Heaven

Final-State of the WickedThe Finality of the Future JudgmentThe Eternality of Future PunishmentDegrees of Punishment

Implications of the Doctrine of the Final States

vvhen we speak of the final states, we are in a sense returningto the discussion of individual eschatology, for at the last judgment everyindividual will be consigned to the particular state which he or she willpersonally experience throughout all eternity. Yet the whole human racewill enter these states simultaneously and collectively, so we are reallydealing with questions of collective or cosmic eschatology as well. Thesubject of the future states is one on which there is a great deal ofspeculation and misinformation. Yet surprisingly there is relatively little

1225

1226 The Last Things

*said in systematic-theologymatter of heaven.1

texts on these matters, particularly on the

Final State of the Righteous

The Term “Heaven”

There are various ways of denoting the future condition of the right-eous. The most common, of course, is “heaven.” Yet the term itself needsto be examined, for P~Q? (shamayim) and oirpcllv& are used in basicallythree different ways in the Bible. The first is cosmological.2 The expres-sion ‘heaven and earth” (or “the heavens and the earth”) is used todesignate the entire universe. In the creation account we are told, “In thebeginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:l). Jesus said,“Till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, wiII pass fromthe law” (Matt. 5: 18; see also 2435; Luke 16: 17). He referred to the Fatheras “Lord of heaven and earth” (Matt. 11:25). Heaven (03p(wvbs) is thefirmament in which the stars are set (Matt. 24:29), the air (Matt. 626) theplace where lightning (Luke 17:24) and rain originate (Luke 4:25). Second,‘heaven” is a virtual synonym for God.3 Among examples are the prodigalson’s confession to his father, “I have sinned against heaven and beforeyou” (Luke 15:18, 2 1); Jesus’ question to the Pharisees, “The baptism ofJohn, whence was it? From heaven or from man?” (Matt. 2 1:25); and Johnthe Baptist’s declaration, “No one can receive anything except what isgiven him from heaven” (John 3:27). Most notable is Matthew’s repeateduse of the expression ‘kingdom of heaven” where Luke in pamlIe pas-sages has “kingdom of God.” Writing to a Jewish audience, who wouldnot pronounce the name Yahweh, Matthew used “heaven” as a synonymfor God.

The third meaning of the word heaven, and the one most significantfor our purposes, is the abode of God.4 Thus, Jesus taught his disciples topray, “Our Father who art in heaven” (Matt. 6:9). He often spoke of “yourFather who is in heaven” (Matt. 516, 45; 6: 1; 7:ll; 18: 14) and “my Fatherwho is in heaven” (Matt. 7:2 1; 10~32, 33; 12:50; 16: 17; 18: 10, 19). The

1. E.g., Louis Berkhof in his Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), atome of 738 pages, devotes only one page to heaven and two pages to hell (pp. 735-37).

2. Helmut Traub, otip(~v&, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Ger-hard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 10 ~01s. (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1964-l 976), vol. 5, pp, 5 14-20.

3. Ibid., pp. 52 l-22.4. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon

of the Old Testament (New York: Oxford University, 1955), p. 1030.

Final States 1227

expression ‘heavenly Father” conveys the same idea (Matt. 5:48; 6: 14, 26,32; 15: 13; 18:35). Jesus is said to have come from heaven: “No one hasascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son ofman” (John 3:13; see also 3:3 1; 6:42,5 1).5 Angels come from heaven (Matt.28:2; Luke 22:43) and return to heaven (Luke 2: 15). They dwell in heaven(Mark 13:32), where they behold God (Matt. 18:lO) and carry out theFather’s wilI perfectly (h&t. 610). They are even referred to as a heavenlyhost (Luke 2:13).

It is from heaven that Christ is to be revealed (1 Thess. 1: 10; 4: 16;2 Thess. 1:7). He has gone away to heaven to prepare an eternal dwellingfor believers. We do not know the precise nature of this activity, but it isapparent that he is readying a place where believers will fellowship withhim: “In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, would Ihave told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And when I go andprepare a place for you, I wiIl come again and wiU take you to myself,that where I am you may be also” (John 142-3).

As God’s abode, heaven is obviously where believers will be for alleternity. For Paul said, “Then we who are alive, who are left, shall becaught up together with [the dead in Christ] in the clouds to meet theLord in the air; and so we sha.Il always be with the Lord” (1 Thess. 417).We know that this Lord with whom we shall ever abide is in heaven, inthe presence of the Father: “I am ascending to my Father and yourFather, to my God and your God” (John 20~17; see also Acts 1:10-l 1). Heis now there: “For Christ has entered, not into a sanctuary made withhands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in thepresence of God on our behalf” (Heb. 9:24). Consequently, to be withChrist is to be with the Father in heaven. The believer is to make prepa-ration for heaven: “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, wheremoth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, but lay upfor yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust con-sumes and where thieves do not break in and steal” (Matt. 6:19-20). Peterwrites that believers have been born anew “to an inheritance which isimperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who byGod’s power are guarded through faith for a salvation ready to berevealed in the last time” (1 Peter 1:4-5). Paul similarly speaks of “thehope laid up for you in heaven” (Col. 1:5) and of a future time when allthings in heaven and on earth will unite in Christ: God has “a plan for thefuhress of time, to unite all things in [Christ], things in heaven and thingson earth” (Eph. 1: 10).

5. Leon Morris, The Lord from Heaven (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958), pp. 26-29.

122X The Last Things

The Nature of Heaven

Heaven is, first and foremost, the presence of God. In Revelation 21:3the new heaven is likened to the tabernacle, the tent where God haddwelt among Old Testament Israel: a great voice from the throne said,“Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them,and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them” (rev).God’s intention from the beginning, to have fellowship with man, led firstto his creating the human race, then to his dwelling in the tabernacle andtemple, then to his coming in the incarnation, and finally to his takinghumans to be with him (heaven). Sometimes, especially in popular pres-entations, heaven is depicted as primarily a place of great physical pleas-ures, a place where everything we have most desired here on earth isfulfilled to the ultimate degree. Thus heaven seems to be merely earthly(and even worldly) conditions amplified. The correct perspective, how-ever, is to see the basic nature of heaven as the presence of God; fromhis presence all of the blessings of heaven follow.

The presence of God means that we will have perfect knowledge. Inthis regard, the Catholic tradition has made much of the idea that inheaven we will have a beatific vision of God.6 While this concept may havebeen overemphasized, it does lay hold upon the important truth that forthe first time we shall see and know God in a direct way. Paul makes thecomment that at present “our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecyis imperfect; but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away.. . .For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know inpart; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood’( 1 Cor. 13:9-l 2). John speaks of the effect which Gods presence will haveupon the believer: “Beloved, we are God’s children now; it does not yetappear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall belike him, for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2).

Heaven will also be characterized by the removal of all evils. In beingwith his people, God “will wipe away every tear from their eyes, anddeath shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying norpain any more, for the former things have passed away” (Rev. 21:4). Notonly these afflictions, but also the very source of evil, the one who temptsus to sin, will be gone: “and the devil who had deceived them was throwninto the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophetwere, and they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever” (Rev.2O:lO). The presence of the perfectly holy God and the spotless Lambmeans that there will be no sin or evil of any kind.

6. Joseph Pohlc, Eschutology; or, The Catholic Doctrine of the Last Things: A Dog-tputk. 7i-eutke (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1917), pp. 34-37.

Final States 1229

Since glory is of the very nature of God, heaven will be a place ofgreat glory.’ The announcement of Jesus’ birth was accompanied by thewords: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among menwith whom he is pleased!” (Luke 2:14). Similar words were spoken at histriumphal entry into Jerusalem: “Peace in heaven and glory in the high-est!” (Luke 19:38). The second coming of Christ will be in great glory(Matt. 24:30), and he will sit upon his glorious throne (Matt. 25:3 1). Jesustold the multitude that he would come “in the glory of his Father withthe holy angels” (Mark 8:38). Images suggesting immense size or brilliantlight depict heaven as a place of unimaginable splendor, greatness, excel-lence, and beauty. The new Jerusalem which will come down out ofheaven from God is described as made of pure gold (even its streets arepure gold) and decorated with precious jewels (Rev. 2 1:18-2 1). It is likelythat while John’s vision employs as metaphors those items which wethink of as being most valuable and beautiful, the actual splendor ofheaven far exceeds anything that we have yet experienced. There will beno need of sun or moon to illumine the new Jerusalem, for “the glory ofGod is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb” (Rev. 21:23; see also 22:5).

Our Life in Heaven: Rest, Worship, and Service

We are told relatively little about the activities of the redeemed inheaven, but there are a few glimpses of what our future existence is tobe. One quality of our life in heaven will be rest.8 The writer of the letterto the Hebrews makes much of this concept. Rest, as the term is used inHebrews, is not merely a cessation of activities, but the experience ofreaching a goal of crucial importance. Thus, there are frequent refer-ences to the pilgrimage through the wilderness en route to the “rest” ofthe Promised Land (Heb. 3:11,18). Attainment of the Promised Land wasnot the end of an ordinary labor, but the completion of an extremelydifficult and toilsome endeavor. A similar rest awaits believers: “So then,there remains a sabbath rest for the people of God; for whoever entersGods rest also ceases from his labors as God did from his. Let ustherefore strive to enter that rest, that no one fall by the same sort ofdisobedience” (Heb. 49-l 1). The people being addressed here are the‘holy brethren, who share in a heavenly call’ (3:l). Heaven, then, will be

7. Bernard Ramm, Them He Glorified A Systematic Study of the Doctrine of Glorifi-cation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), pp. 104-X

8. We are here assuming that our life in heaven will be the personal, conscious,individual existence which appears to be presupposed in all the biblical references. Forthe view that our future existence will be merely a living on in God’s memory, seeDavid L. Edwards, The Last Things Now (London: SCM, 1969), pp. 88-91.

I230 The Last Things

the completion of the Christian’s pilgrimage, the end of the struggleagainst the flesh, the world, and the devil. There will be work to do, butit will not involve fighting against opposing forces.

Another facet of life in heaven is worship? A vivid picture is found inRevelation 19:

After this I heard what seemed to be the mighty voice of a great multitudein heaven, crying, “Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong toour God, for his judgments are true and just; he has judged the greatharlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication, and he has avengedon her the blood of his servants.” Once more they cried, “Hallelujah! Thesmoke from her goes up for ever and ever.” And the twenty-four eldersand the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God who is seatedon the throne, saying, “Amen. Hallelujah!” [vv. l-41

Then a voice from the throne exhorted the multitude to praise God (v. S),and they did so (vv. 6-8).

We find similar accounts elsewhere in Scripture. For example, Isaiahrecounts a vision which he had of the Lord sitting upon a throne, highand lifted up. One seraph called to another, saying, “Holy, holy, holy is theLORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory” (Isa. 6:3). From thesesketches of heaven it appears that its inhabitants regularly praise andworship God. Consequently, we may expect that the redeemed will beengaged in similar activity following the Lord’s coming, the great judg-ment, and the establishment of his heavenly kingdom. In this sense,genuine believers will continue activity they engaged in while on earth.Our worship and praise here and now are preparation and practice forfuture employment of our hearts and voices.

There will evidently be an element of service in heaven as welLlo Forwhen Jesus was in the region of Judea beyond the Jordan, he told hisdisciples that they would judge with him: “Truly, I say to you, in the newworld, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you whohave followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribesof Israel” (Matt. 19:28). Later, at the Last Supper, he said, “You are thosewho have continued with me in my trials; as my Father appointed akingdom for me, so do I appoint for you that you may eat and drink atmy table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes ofIsrael” (Luke 22:28-30). It is not clear just what is involved in this judging,but apparently it is service or work done on behalf of the King. Theremay well be a parallel here to the dominion which man was originally

9. Ulrich Simon, Heuven in the Christian Tradition (New York: Harper, 1958), p. 236.10. Morton Kclsq, A/terfife: The Other Side of @ing (New York: Paulist, 1979), pp.

182-83.

Final States 1231

intended to exercise in the Garden of Eden. He was to serve as anunderlord or vicegerent, carrying out God’s work on his behalf. We arealso reminded of the stewardship parable in Matthew 2514-30, wherethe reward for work done faithfully is greater opportunity for work.Because that parable occurs in an eschatological setting, it may well bean indication that the reward for faithful work done here on earth willbe work in heaven. Note also that Revelation 22:3 tells us that the Lambwill be worshiped by “his servants.”

There is also a suggestion that in heaven there will be some type ofcommunity or fellowship among believers: “But you have come to MountZion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and toinnumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the f&t-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, andto the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of anew covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciouslythan the blood of Abel” (Heb. 12:22-24). Note also the reference to “thespirits of just men made perfect” -heaven is a place of perfected spiritu-ality.”

Issues Regarding Heaven

One of the disputed questions regarding heaven is whether it is a placeor a state. On the one hand, it should be noted that the primary featureof heaven is closeness and communion with God, and that God is purespirit (John 4:24). Since God does not occupy space, which is a feature ofour universe, it would seem that heaven is a state, a spiritual condition,rather than a place. l2 On the other hand, there is the consideration thatwe will have bodies of some type (although they will be “spiritual bodies”)and that Jesus presumably continues to have a glorified body as well.While placelessness may make sense when we are thinking of immortal-ity of the soul, the resurrection of the body seems to require place. Inaddition, parallel references to heaven and earth suggest that, like earth,heaven must be a locale. The most familiar of these references is, “OurFather who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come,Thy will be done, On earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:9-10).13 We mustbe mindful, however, that heaven is another realm, another dimension ofreality, so it is &cult to know what features of the world apply as well

11. J. A. Motyer, After Death: A Sure and Certain Hope? (Philadelphia: Westminster,1965). pp. 74-76.

12. W. H. Dyson, “Heaven,” in A Dictionary of Chtit and the Gospels, ed. JamesHastings (New York: Scribner, 1924), vol. 1, p. 7 12.

13. Alan Richardson, Religion in Contemporury Debate (London: SCM, 1966). p. 72.

1232 The Last Things

to the world to come, and what the term place means in relation to theeschaton. It is probably safest to say that while heaven is both a placeand a state, it is primarily a state. The distinguishing mark of heaven willnot be a particular location, but a condition of blessedness, sinlessness,joy, and peace. 14 Life in heaven, accordingly, will be more real than ourpresent existence.

A second issue concerns the question of physical pleasures. Jesusindicated that there will be in the resurrection, presumably the lifehereafter, no marrying or giving in marriage (Matt. 22:30; Mark 12:25;Luke 20:35). Since sex is in this life to be restricted to marriage (1 Cor.7:8-l l), we have here an argument that there will be no sex in heaven.The high value Paul places upon virginity (1 Cor. 7:25-35) suggests thesame conclusion.15 What of eating and drinking? Revelation 199 refersto the “marriage supper of the Lamb.” And Jesus said to his disciples atthe Last Supper, “I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vineuntil that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom”(Matt. 2629). In view of the fact that the references to Christ and thechurch as bridegroom and bride are symbolic, the marriage supper ofthe Lamb is presumably symbolic as well. Although Jesus ate with hisresurrection body (Luke 2443; cf. John 21:9-14), it should be borne inmind that he was resurrected but not yet ascended, so that the transfor-mation of his body was probably not yet completed. The question arises,If there is to be no eating nor sex, will there be any pleasure in heaven?It should be understood that the experiences of heaven will far surpassanything experienced here. Paul said, “‘What no eye has seen, nor earheard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for thosewho love him,’ God has revealed to us through the Spirit” (1 Cor. 2:9-10).It is likely that heaven’s experiences should be thought of as, for example,suprasexual, transcending the experience of sexual union with the spe-cial individual with whom one has chosen to make a permanent andexclusive commitment.16

A third issue relates to the question of perfection. Within this life wegain satisfaction from growth, progress, development. Will not, then, ourstate of perfection in heaven be a rather boring and unsatisfying situa-tion?” Must there not be growth if heaven is really to be heaven? Thisassumption rests on process thought, the conception that change is ofthe essence of reality. A heaven without change is impossible or incred-

14. Austin Farrcr, Saving Belief (London: Hodder, Stoughton, 1967), p. 144.IS. Simon, Heaven, p. 2 17.16. CL S. Lewis, Mirucles (New York: Macmillan, 1947), pp. 165-66. Lewis uses the term

trun.s-seruul with much the same meaning as we have here attached to “suprasexual.”17. Alf~rcd, Lord Tennyson, “Wages.”

Final States 1233

ible. Some also argue that since children go to heaven, there must begrowth in heaven so that they can attain maturity.18

While there is an existential force to the contention that we cannot besatisfied unless we grow, this is an extrapolation from life as now consti-tuted. But this extrapolation is illegitimate. Frustration and boredomOCCUT within this life whenever there is an arresting of development at afinite point, whenever one has stopped short of perfection. If, however,one were to fully achieve, if there were no feeling of inadequacy orincompleteness, there would probably be no frustration. The stable situ-ation in heaven is not a fixed state short of one’s goal, but a state ofcompletion beyond which there can be no advance. The satisfactionwhich comes from progress occurs precisely because we know we arecloser to the desired goal. Reaching the goal will bring total satisfaction.Therefore, we will not grow in heaven. We will, however, continue toexercise the perfect character which we will have received from God.John Baillie speaks of “development in fruition” as opposed to “develop-ment towards fruition.“19

There also is the question of how much the redeemed in heaven willknow or remember. Will we recognize those close to us in this life? Muchof the popular interest in heaven stems from expectation of reunion withloved ones. Will we be aware of the absence of relatives and closefriends? Will there be an awareness of sinful actions taken and godlydeeds omitted in this life? If so, will not all of this lead to regret andsorrow? With regard to these questions we must necessarily plead acertain amount of ignorance. It does not appear, from Jesus’ response tothe Sadducees’ question about the woman who had outlived seven hus-bands, all of them brothers (Luke 20:27-40), that there will be familyunits as such. On the other hand, the disciples were evidently able torecognize Moses and Elijah at the transfiguration (Matt. 17:1-8; Mark9:2-8; Luke 9:28-36). This fact suggests that there will be some indicatorsof personal identity by which we will be able to recognize one another.20But we may infer that we will not recollect past failures and sins andt-r&sing loved ones, since that would introduce a sadness incompatiblewith “he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be nomore, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, forthe former things have passed away” (Rev. 2 1:4).

A fifth question is whether there will be varying rewards in heaven.That there apparently will be degrees of reward is evident in, for example,

18. Edmund G. Kaufman, &sic Christian Convictions (North Newton, Kans.: BethelCollege, 1972). p. 289.

19. John Baillie, And the Life Everkafing (New York: Scribner, 1933), p. 28 I.20. Motyer, After Death, p. 87.

1234 The Last Things

the parable of the pounds (Luke 19:l l-27).** Ten servants were eachgiven one pound by their master. Eventually they returned differingamounts to him and were rewarded in proportion to their faithfulness.Supporting passages include Daniel 12:3 (‘And those who are wise shallshine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many torighteousness, like the stars for ever and ever”) and 1 Corinthians 3:14-15 (“If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, hewill receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss,though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire”).

The differing rewards or differing degrees of satisfaction in heavenare usually pictured in terms of objective circumstances. For instance,we might suppose that a very faithful Christian will be given a largeroom in the Father’s house; a less faithful believer will receive a smallerroom. But if this is the case, would not the joy of heaven be reduced byone’s awareness of the differences and the constant reminder that onemight have been more faithful? In addition, the few pictures which wedo have of life in heaven evidence no real difference: all are worshiping,judging, serving. A bit of speculation may be in order at this point. As wepointed out in chapter 3, speculation is a legitimate theological activity,as long as we are aware that we are speculating. May it not be that thedifference in the rewards lies not in the external or objective circumstan-ces, but in the subjective awareness or appreciation of those circumstan-ces? Thus, all would engage in the same activity, for example, worship,but some would enjoy it much more than others. Perhaps those whohave enjoyed worship more in this life will hnd greater satisfaction in itin the life beyond than will others. An analogy here is the varying degreesof pleasure which different people derive from a concert. The samesound waves fall on everyone’s ears, but the reactions may range fromboredom (or worse) to ecstasy. A similar situation may well hold withrespect to the joys of heaven, although the range of reactions will pre-sumably be narrower. No one will be aware of the differences in rangeof enjoyment, and thus there will be no dimming of the perfection ofheaven by regret over wasted opportunities.

Final State of the Wicked

Just as in the past, the question of the future state of the wicked hascreated a considerable amount of controversy in our day. The doctrineof an everlasting punishment appears to some to be an outmoded or

2 I. S. D. F. Salmond, “Heaven,” in A Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings (NewYork: Scribner, 1919), vol. 2, p. 324.

Final States 1235

sub-Christian view.** It, together with angels and demons, is often one ofthe first topics of Christian belief to be demythologized. Part of theproblem stems from what appears to be a tension between the love ofGod, a cardinal characteristic of God’s nature, and his judgment. Yet,however we regard the doctrine of everlasting punishment, it is clearlytaught in Scripture.

The Bible employs several images to depict the future state of theunrighteous. Jesus said, “Then [the King] will say to those at his left hand,‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the deviland his angels”’ (Matt. 2541). He likewise described their state as “outerdarkness”: “the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer dark-ness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth” (Matt. 8:12). The finalcondition of the wicked is also spoken of as eternal punishment (Matt.25:46), torment (Rev. 1410-l l), the bottomless pit (Rev. 9:1-2, 1 l), thewrath of God (Rom. 2:5), second death (Rev. 21:8), eternal destructionand exclusion from the face of the Lord (2 Thess. 1:9).

If there is one basic characteristic of hell, it is, in contrast to heaven,the absence of God or banishment from his presence. It is an experienceof intense anguish, whether it involve physical suffering or mental dis-tress or both.23 There are other aspects of the situation of the lostindividual which contribute to its misery. One is a sense of loneliness, ofhaving seen the glory and greatness of God, of having realized that he isthe Lord of all, and then of being cut off. There is the realization that thisseparation is permanent. Similarly, the condition of one’s moral andspiritual self is permanent. Whatever one is at the end of life will continuefor all eternity. There is no basis for expecting change for the better.Thus, hopelessness comes over the individual.

The Final@ of the Future Judgment

It is important to recognize the finality of the coming judgment. Whenthe verdict is rendered at the last judgment, the wicked will be assignedto their find state .24 Nothing in Scripture indicates that there will beopportunity for belief after a preliminary period of punishment.

To some the finality of the judgment seems contrary to reason, andeven perhaps to Scripture. Indeed, there are some passages of Scripture

22. Nels FerrC, The Christian Understanding of Cod (New York: Harper and Brothers,195 l), pp. 233-34.

23. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), vol. 3,p. 868.

24. J. A. Motyer, “The Final State: Heaven and Hell,” in Basic Christian Doctrines, ed.Carl F. H. Henry (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962), p. 292.

1236 The Last Things Final States 1237

which seem to indicate that all will be saved. Paul, for example, wrote,“For he has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery ofhis will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ as a planfor the fulness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven andthings on earth” (Eph. 1:9-10). And speaking of the future, he declared“that at the name of Jesus every knee [shall] bow, in heaven and on earthand under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:10-l I). On the basis of suchreferences, it is contended that those who in this life reject the offer ofsalvation will, after their death and Christ’s second coming, be soberedby their situation and will therefore be reconciled to Christ.25

Unfortunately, however, as appealing as thins view is, it cannot bemaintained. For one thing, the passages cited do not really teach whatthe universalist claims they teach. The reconciliation, the uniting of allthings, is not a restoration of fallen humanity to fellowship with God, buta restoration of harmony within the creation by, among other actions,putting sin into subjection to the Lord. It is not a matter of humans’accepting God, but of his quelling their rebellion. And while it is indeedtrue that every knee will bow and every tongue confess Christ as Lord,we must picture the wicked not as eagerly joining forces with the Lord,but as surrendering to a conquering army, so to speak. There will be anacquiescence in defeat, not a joyful commitment.

Furthermore, Scripture nowhere gives indication of a second chance.Surely, if there is to be an opportunity for belief after the judgment, itwould be clearly set forth in God’s Word.

Beyond these considerations, there are definite statements to the con-trary. A finality attaches to the biblical depictions of the sentence ren-dered at the judgment; for example, “Depart from me, you cursed, intothe eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 2541). Theparable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16: 19-3 l), although it relatesto the intermediate rather than the final state, makes it clear that there isan absoluteness about their condition. It is not even possible to travelbetween the different states: ‘And besides all this, between us and you agreat chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass fromhere to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us”(v. 26). We must therefore conclude that restorationism, the idea of asecond chance, must be rejected.26

25. 0rig:en De principiis 1. 6. 2; 3. 6. 3. For a contempor,ary statement of universalism,sc’c John A. T. Robinson, In the End, God (New York: Harper and Row, 1968), pp. 119-33.

26. Leon Morris, The Bihlicul Doctrine of Judgment (Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans, 1960),p. 66.

The Eternal@ of Future Punishment

Not only is the future judgment of unbelievers irreversible, but theirpunishment is eternal. We do not reject merely the idea that all will besaved; we also reject the contention that none will be eternally punished.The school of thought known as annihilationism, on the other hand,maintains that although not everyone will be saved, there is only oneclass of future existence. Those who are saved will have an unending life;those who are not saved will be eliminated or annihilated. They willsimply cease to exist. While granting that not everyone deserves to besaved, to receive everlasting bliss, this position maintains that no onedeserves endless suffering.

B. B. Warfield maintained that there are three different forms ofannihilation&m: pure mortalism, conditional immortality, and annihila-tionism proper.27 Pure mortalism holds that the human life is so closelytied to the physical organism that when the body dies, the person as anentity ceases to exist. This is primarily a materialistic view, although italso is found at times in pantheistic forms.28 Pure mortalism has notbeen popular in Christian circles, since, in contradiction to the biblicaldoctrine of man’s creation in the image of God, it makes man little morethan an animal.

The second form of annihilationism, conditional immortality, main-tains that the human being is by nature mortal. Death is the end. In thecase of those who believe, however, God gives immortality or eternal life,so that they survive death or are restored to life. In some understandingsof conditional immortality, God simply allows the unbeliever to pass outof existence.29 Others hold that all will participate in the resurrection, butthat God then will simply allow the unrighteous to pass out of existenceagain. Eternal death is for them just that. Their second death will lastforever.

The third form of annihilationism is most deserving of the title. It seesthe extinction of the evil person at death as a direct result of sin. Man isby nature immortal and would have everlasting life but for the effects ofsin. There are two subtypes of annihilationism proper. The first seesannihilation as a natural result of sin. Sin has such a detrimental effectthat the personality of the individual gradually dies out. Thus, “the wagesof sin is death” (Rom. 6:23) is taken quite literally. Sin is self-destruction.

27. Benjamin B. War-field, “Annihilationism, ” in Studies in Theology (New York: Ox-ford University, 1932), pp. 447-50.

28. Ibid., pp. 447-48.29. Edward White, Life in Christ: A Study of the Scripture Doctrine of the Nuture of

Man, the Object of the Divine Incur-nation, und the Conditions of Human Immortulity, 3rded. rev. (London: Elliot Stock, 1878).

1238 The Last Things

After a certain length of time, perhaps proportionate to the sinfulness ofthe individual, those who are not redeemed wear out as it were. Theother type of pure annihilationism is the idea that God cannot and willnot allow the sinful person to have eternal life. There is punishment forsin. The punishment need not be infinite, however. After a sufficientamount of punishment has been endured, God will simply destroy theindividual self. It should be noted that in both subtypes of annihilation&mproper, the soul or self would be immortal but for sir1.3~

The problem with all of the forms of annihilationism is that theycontradict the teaching of the Bible. Several passages assert the endless-ness of the punishment of the wicked. Both the Old and New Testamentsrefer to unending or unquenchable fire. Isaiah 66:24, for example, says,“And they shall go forth and look on the dead bodies of the men thathave rebelled against me; for their worm shall not die, their fire shall notbe quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.” Jesus uses thesame images to describe the punishment of sinners: “Xnd if your handcauses you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed thanwith two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your footcauses you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame thanwith two feet to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin,pluck it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eyethan with two eyes to be thrown into hell, where their worm does notdie, and the hre is not quenched” (Mark 9:43-48). These passages makeit clear that the punishment is unending. It does not consume the oneupon whom it is inflicted and thus simply come to an end.

In addition, there are several instances where words like “everlasting,”“eternal,” and “forever” are applied to nouns designating the future stateof the wicked: fire or burning (Isa. 33:14; Jer. 17:4; Matt. 18:8; 254 1; Jude7) contempt (Dan. 12:2), destruction (2 Thess. 1:9), chains (Jude 6), tor-ment (Rev. 14:ll; 20:10), and punishment (Matt. 2546). To be sure, theadjective ai&~oe may on a few occasions have reference to an age, thatis, a very long period of time, rather than to eternity. Usually, however, inthe absence of a contrary indication in the context, the most commonmeaning of a word is the one in view. In the cases we have cited, nothingin the contexts justifies our understanding cri&~og as meaning anythingother than “eternal.” The parallelism found in Matthew 2.546 is particu-larly noteworthy: “And they will go away into eternal punishment, but therighteous into eternal life.” If the one (life) is of unending duration, thenthe other (punishment) must be also. Nothing in the context gives us

30. Seventh-duy Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine (Washington: Review andHerald, 1957), p. 14.

Final States 1239

warrant to interpret the word O%VLOF differently in the two clauses. JohnA. T. Robinson comments:

The genuine universalist will base nothing on the fact (which is a fact)that the New Testament word for eternal (aionios) does not necessarilymean everlasting, but enduring only for an indefinitely long period. Forhe can apply this signification to “eternal punishment” in Matt. 25.46 onlyif he is willing to give exactly the same sense to “eternal life” in the sameverse. As F. D. Maurice said many years ago now, writing to F. J. A. HOI?:“I did not see how aionios could mean one thing when it was joined withkolasis and another when it was joined with zoe” (quoted, J. 0. F. Murray,The Goodness and the Severity of God, p. 195). To admit that the twophrases are not parallel is at once to treat them with unequal seriousness.And that a true universalism must refuse to do.31

A problem arises from the fact that Scripture speaks not merely ofeternal death (which one might interpret as meaning that the wicked willnot be resurrected), but of eternal fire, eternal punishment, and eternaltorment as well. What kind of God is it who is not satisfied by a finitepunishment, but makes humans suffer for ever and ever? This seems tobe beyond the demands of justice; it appears to involve a tremendousdegree of vindictiveness on the part of God. The punishment seems tobe out of all proportion to the sin, for, presumably, all sins are finite actsagainst God. How does one square belief in a good, just, and loving Godwith eternal punishment? The question must not be dismissed lightly, forit concerns the very essence of God’s nature. The fact that hell, as oftenunderstood, seems to be incompatible with Gods love, as revealed inScripture, may be an indication that we have misunderstood hell.

We should note, hrst, that whenever we sin, an infinite factor is invari-ably involved. All sin is an offense against God, the raising of a finite willagainst the will of an infinite being. It is failure to carry out one’s obliga-tion to him to whom everything is due. Consequently, one cannot con-sider sin to be merely a hnite act deserving finite punishment.

Further, if God is to accomplish his goals in this world, he may nothave been free to make man unsusceptible to endless punishment. God’somnipotence does not mean that he is capable of every conceivableaction. He is not capable of doing the logically contradictory or absurd,for example. He cannot make a triangle with four corners.32 And it maywell be that those creatures that God intended to live forever in fellow-ship with him had to be fashioned in such a way that they wouldexperience eternal anguish if they chose to live apart from their Maker.

31. Robinson, In the End, God, p. 13 1, n. 8.32. C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York: Macmillan, 1962), p. 28.

1240 The Last Things Final States 1241

Man was designed to live eternally with God; if man perverts this hisdestiny, he will experience eternally the consequences of that act.

We should also observe that God does not send anyone to hell. Hedesires that none should perish (2 Peter 3:9). God created man to havefellowship with him and provided the means by which man can havethat fellowship. It is man’s choice to experience the agony of hell His sinsends him there, and his rejection of the benefits of Christ’s death pre-vents his escaping. As C. S. Lewis has put it, sin is man’s saying to Godthroughout life, “Go away and leave me alone.” Hell is Gods finally sayingto man, “You may have your wish.” It is God’s leaving man to himself, asman has chosen.33

Degrees of Punishment

We should observe, finally, that Jesus’ teaching suggests that there aredegrees of punishment in hell. He upbraided those cities which hadwitnessed his miracles but failed to repent: “Woe to you, Chorazin! woeto you, Bethsaida! . . . For if the mighty works done in you had been donein Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that itshall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodomthan for you” (Matt. 11:21-24). There is a similar hint in the parable ofthe faithful and faithless stewards: ‘And that servant who knew hismasters will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shallreceive a severe beating. But he who did not know, and did what de-served a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom muchis given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commitmuch they will demand the more” (Luke 12:47-48).

The principle here seems to be, the greater our knowledge, the greateris our responsibility, and the greater will be our punishment if we fail inour responsibility. It may well be that the different degrees of punishmentin hell are not so much a matter of objective circumstances as ofsubjective awareness of the pain of separation from God. This is parallelto our conception of the varying degrees of reward in heaven (p. 1234).To some extent, the different degrees of punishment reflect the fact thathell is God’s leaving sinful man with the particular character that hefashioned for himself in this life. The misery one will experience fromhaving to live with one’s wicked self eternally will be proportionate to hisdegree of awareness of precisely what he was doing when he chose evil.

Implications of the Doctrine of the Final States

1. The decisions which we make in this life will govern our futurecondition not merely for a period of time, but for all eternity. So weshould exercise extraordinary care and diligence as we make them.

2. The conditions of this life, as Paul put it, are transitory. They fadeinto relative insignificance when compared with the eternity to come.

3. The nature of the future states is far more intense than anythingknown in this life. The images used to depict them are quite inadequateto fully convey what lies ahead. Heaven, for example, will far transcendany joy that we have known here.

4. The bliss of heaven ought not to be thought of as simply an intensi-fication of the pleasures of this life. The primary dimension of heaven isthe presence of the believer with the Lord.

5. Hell is not so much a place of physical suffering as it is the awfulloneliness of total and final separation from the Lord.

6. Hell should not be thought of primarily as punishment visited uponunbelievers by a vindictive God, but as the natural consequences of thesinful life chosen by those who reject Christ.

7. It appears that although all humans will be consigned either toheaven or to hell, there will be degrees of reward and punishment.

33. Ibid., pp. 127-28.

Concluding Thoughts

We have come to the end of a lengthy examination of ideas.Not only have we looked at many different to&, we have also noted avariety of conceptions on these different topics. It may be well to con-clude our study of systematic theology by putting such an endeavor intoa proper context. Are ideas really that important? With some persons, aconcern for immediate experience or a desire for instant application maytend to overshadow theoretical considerations. As a result, the value of awriting such as this may appear doubtful. To be sure, the reader who hascome this far may well be assumed not to share such an estimation ofthe value of ideas. Yet a quick review of the role which concepts playmay be in order.

To a large extent, our world is what it is because of ideas which havebeen conceived, evaluated, and verified. The concept of instantaneouslytransmitting pictures over long distances, considered fantastic a centuryago, has become a reality, and the nature of culture and society has beenaltered as a consequence. The idea of the equality of the various humanraces and the need for justice among them has greatly influenced thecourse of the last half of the twentieth century. The idea of the dialecticwhich Karl Marx borrowed from Georg Hegel and modified into his ownscheme of dialectical materialism may have seemed abstract and irrele-vant to many people when he hrst propounded it. Nevertheless, it has

1243

1244 Concluding Thoughts

greatly affected not only the understanding but also the experience ofcountless numbers of persons throughout the world. And who couldhave foreseen the influence which Charles Darwin’s strange conceptionof the origin of species would have upon the world? Adolf Hitler’s idea ofthe super race and of Aryan supremacy led to the death of approximatelysix million Jews.

More significant than the impact of these ideas is that of the conceptswhich form the central basis of Christianity. The idea that God enteredthe world in human form, was crucified, and rose from the dead seemsincredible to many. Yet the world is a far different place from what itwould be if there had not been millions who believed and proclaimedthis message. How many hospitals, how many institutions of highereducation have come into being because of the driving force of thosewho went forth in the name of the one they believed to be God Incarnate!The impact which Christianity had upon the first-century world and thesubsequent development of history is directly related to the revolutionaryideas which it presented about who Jesus Christ is and what the meaningof life is.

The issue of correct belief is ever so important in our time. We findnumerous shadings of religious ideas. And we also encounter myriadconceptions of Christian lifestyle, which are rooted in differing doctrinalconceptions. Our particular understanding of basic concepts, for ex-ample, the relationship between grace and works, has a profound influ-ence upon what we do in our Christian lives and the spirit in which wedo it. Hence right belief is imperative.

Yet even if our beliefs are pure and correct, that is not enough in itself.For correct belief and theological mastery are of no value in and ofthemselves in the sight of the Lord. Imagine, if you will, a group oftheological students and practicing theologians appearing before theLord on the day of judgment and, in echo of Matthew 7:22, pleading,“Have we not studied Christian Theology in your name? Have we notexpounded the fundamental doctrines of Christianity in your name?”The Lord will reply, “I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.”Doctrine is important, but its importance lies in the contribution whichit makes to our relationship with God. Without that, the finest theology,most eloquently enunciated, is merely “tinkling brass and clanging cym-bals.” The point being made here is that our beliefs (our official theology,based upon objective teachings of Scripture) must be put into practice(which is, so to speak, our unofficial theology). If we are to bring ouractual practice into conformity with our beliefs, we will have to reflectand even meditate upon those beliefs. Perhaps this is part of what Paulmeant when he spoke of being “transformed by the renewing of yourmind” (Rom. 12:2).

Concluding Thoughts 1245

There are certain dangers associated with the study of theology. Thereare certain theological diseases to which one is exposed and which onemay contract as a result of this endeavor. Helmut Thielicke has describedseveral of them quite vividly in his Lit& Exercise for Young Theologians.One of the most common and most serious is the sin of pride. When wehave acquired a considerable sophistication in matters of theology, thereis a danger that we will regard that knowledge as something of a badgeof virtue, something that sets us apart as superior to others. We may usethat knowledge, and particularly the jargon which we have acquired, tointimidate others who are less informed. We may take advantage of oursuperior skills, becoming intellectual bullies.1 Or our knowledge of theol-ogy may lead us to a type of theological gamesmanship, in which thearguing of one theory against another becomes our whole purpose inlife. But this is to convert what should be the most serious of mattersinto a sport.

In this connection we should remember the words of Jesus that weare to become like little children; God has hidden his truth from the wiseof this world and revealed it to babes (Matt. 11:25). We should notunderestimate the theological acumen and sensitivity of those who havenot engaged in theological studies in a formal sense. There is whatThielicke calls “the spiritual instinct of the children of God.“2 Many laypersons, although unskilled in the official theological sciences, nonethe-less have experience in the Christian life which sometimes gives theminsight far surpassing that of many professional theologians. When Jesusspoke of sending the Holy Spirit, who would guide believers into all truth(John l&13), he did not restrict his promise to seminary graduates.

We should not conclude from this last point, however, that theology isnot an intellectual endeavor. It calls for rigorously logical thinking. Toconstruct a systematic theology, we must think systematically. That is tosay, we cannot proceed in an eclectic fashion. Although we will drawupon insights wherever they may be found, we will always seek to thinkin a coherent fashion. We will not knowingly incorporate into our systemideas which rest upon presuppositions which are contradictory to eachother. There will, of course, be mysteries which we do not fully compre-hend. But the systematic theologian, not readily accepting of opacity, willendeavor to plumb them.

Beyond the logical or rational character of theology, there is also itsaesthetic character. There is the potential, as we survey the whole ofGod’s truth, of grasping its artistic nature. There is a beauty to the great

1. Helmut Thielicke, A Little Exercise for Young Theologians (Grand Rapids: Eerd-mans, 1962), pp. 13-20.

2. Ibid., pp. 25-26.

I246 Concluding Thoughts

compass and the inter-relatedness of the doctrines. The organic characterof theology, its balanced depiction of the whole of reality and of humannature, should bring a sense of satisfaction to the human capacity toappreciate beauty in the form of symmetry, comprehensiveness, andcoherence.

Theology is not simply to be learned, understood, and appreciated,however. There is the additional issue of communication of the message.What we have given in these three volumes is the basic content of theChristian world-and-life view, and thus of the message that all humanbeings are called upon to accept. That content will need to be continuallyreexpressed, however. In attempting to walk the tightrope between thetimeless essence of the doctrines and a particular contemporary expres-sion of them, we have leaned toward the former when a choice had tobe made. This approach has left a need for restatement of the doctrinesin ways that will make them accessible to more people. This need resultsin part from the fact that the author is an educated, middle-class, NorthAmerican white male. Although he has ministered in a pastoral role toblacks, Hispanics, and the lower economic classes, the basic orientationof these writings is to the type of students who currently enroll inAmerican evangelical seminaries. Much work needs to be done in tailor-ing the content of the theology to Third-World audiences. There is also aneed for adaptation of this theology vertically. For it is written primarilyfor seminary students. It is encouraging to find lay persons studyingthese volumes. Yet real theology is capable of being expressed even tochildren.

In part the communication of theology will be aided by the realizationthat theology need not always be expressed in discursive or didacticform. Sometimes a story communicates it better. Jesus demonstratedthis repeatedly through his use of parables. In the twentieth century,C. S. Lewis has shown that theology can be placed in the form ofwinsome stories, even children’s stories. Narrative theology has commu-nicated profound truth with dynamic effect.3 Yet we need to bear inmind the difference between theological reflection and the communica-tion of the content of doctrine. The more precise categories of reflectivediscursive thought are still essential for the actual formulation of theol-ogy

The author is convinced that real theology, good theology, will en-hance the reader’s awareness of the greatness and grandeur of God.When Moses met God in the burning bush (Exod. 3), he was filled with a

Concluding Thoughts 1247

sense of his own unworthiness, his own sinfulness. Peter, too, when herealized that he was in the presence of a perfect and powerful Lord, wasstruck with awe (Luke 5:8). If we have genuinely grasped the significanceof the truths which we have studied, we will have a similar reaction.Certain of the topics covered point us more directly and effectively towhat God is like and what he does, but all have that effect to somedegree. The purpose of the author in writing will have been achievedonly if the reader has come to love the Lord more and is better able tocommunicate that love to others.

3. See Millard J. Erickson, “Narrative Theology in Translation or Transformation?” inFestschrift: A Tribute to William Horder-n, ed. Walter Freitag (Saskatoon: University ofSaskatchewan, 1985).

Scripture Index

Genesis

l-139,506,511,512,513,113l

l - 2 - 4 3 8l - 3 - 5 9 0l:l-271,366,369,371,

380,12261:2-303,372,380,858,

8661:3-3701:3-27-3801:6-3701:9-3701: 10-3751:12-3751:18-3751:20-373,4831:21-375,4831:24-373,4831:25-3751:26-328-29,486,498,

501,508,510,512,546,690,724

1:26-27-456,474,496,500,507,545

1:27-294,329,497,505,516,545,546

1:27-28-5081:28-177,474,510,556,

597,6071:31-375,428,4912:1-4382:2-3-4382:7-202,303,373,474,

481,483,11692:15-17-8032:17-288,428,6112: 18-5462: 19-373

2:21-3732:24-122,213,329,11323-270,428,448,655,961

3:2-3-4283:3-l 1703:4-S-5983:46-4923:5-5863:8-1763:11-6163:12-617

3:13-6173:14-19-10013:15-2913:16-170,546,5473:16-19-4283:17-19-1703:19-483,611,612,11693:20-5 163:22-7253:22-23- 11703:24-4424 - 4 8 54: l-4864: 13-5754:13-15-5434:26-2695: l-4975:1-2-505,516,5465:2-4975:3-4866 - 6 0 96-7-425,120l6:2-442-436:3-5656:4-4426:5-622,626,628

1249

1252 Scripture Index Scrlpturc Index 1253

19: 18-22921:1-230,39821:5-229

37-39537: 10-39138-34938~2-34738:4-34938:7-438,442,44441: l-79542~2-34842:3-347, 34942:5-6-93642:8-805

29: l-43830:3-77430:5-60431:5-52231:1415-39633:11-278, 347,3533 3 : 1 5 - 3 9 833:20-54634:7-44435:19-21036: l-62337-34837:37-62340:7-B-72542:6-52245:6-32645~6-7-76747-120747:7-B-39649:15-l 19451-62351:2-62651:4-61551:5-553,626,7565 1:6-62651:7-62651: lo-62651: lO( 12)-36851:11-86953-622,62353: l-23253:3-63 157: lo-29658: 1 l-28861:5, 8-29265~3-34866:7-39666: 13-29268: 17-43969:4-60369:21-34969:25-20270:5-54672-120772: 18-44 173-28973:24-99873:24-25- 119573:26-93975:6-7, 9-10-39678- 18778:2-2 1078:8-572

78:57-57479: l-57480: l-44281:12-13-40082:6-210, 21384: 1 l-40686:5-29686: 15-29689:5-7-438 .89:11-12(12-13)-36890: l-2-27490:5-7-l 17191-34891:5-6-39391:11-393,44491:16-55292:5(6)-34794: l-60995:&l l-60996:5-371, 37297:7-21399: l-44299:3-28599:9-286100-1207100:5-120102:3-5-493102:25-326102:26-27-278103:8-14-963103: 13-296103:19-22-397103:20-44 1,444104:4-213104:5, 10, 13-391104: 14-395104:20-21-391104:21-29-395104:24-276104:24-30-391104:29-30-303104:30-372,858106: 13-347106:40-604107:10-16-609107: 1 l-347109:8-202llO:l-326113:5-6-313115:3-277115:9-546115:10-546115:11-546

119-687119:67-565119:71-610119:72-1011119:91-353119:105-1011,1012121-348123:1-313124: l-3-401130:3-622135:5-7-395139:7-12-273139: 13-15-553139:16-347,348, 351140:3-623143:2-622143: lo-869145: 16-294147:5-275147:8-15-395148:2-444148:2-5-438

Ecclesiastes

1 :9-273:21-5225:4-5-2925:15-5557:20-6237:26-6267:29-62610:5-56512:7-522, 1169

2 Chronicles

4: l-2-23 14:2-222,2367: 14-93618:20-22-4 1820:13-109432:21-44132:31-399

Ezra

7:27-398lO:l--1031

Nehemiah

8:2-10319:6-3889:20-869

Esther

3:3-5714: 14-397

Job

l : l - 9 8 21:6-438,4421:8-623,9821:12-401,4411:21-5552: l-438,4422:6-401,4413:11-5553: 17-5755: 10-3919:5-9-39512: 16-56612:20-55212:23-39614:5-34814: 16-17-62322-43025:3-44026:13-372,858,86727~3-30233:4-302,37234: 12-28534:14-15-302-0335:7-35 1

Psalms

2: l-2-2 132:7-725, 73 12: 12-6045:5-575, 6025:9-6236:8-575B-511,8948~4-6-4728:5-4388:5-6-5098:7-B-509, 5129:4-95510:2-55010:7-62310:9-55011:5-60214-622, 62314:1-232, 62214:3-622, 63 114:5-62216:10-213, 773, 774,

1183, 119517:15-l 19418:40-60319-164, 165, 166, 168,

1011, 101619:1-154, 373, 76819:1-2-17019:3--166-6819:4- 16719:7-101119:7-9-28619:8-101119:10-101119:11-101119:13-39920:7, 9-26922:26- 103224~7-10-99827: 10-l l-348

Proverbs

3:11-12-9653: 19-20-3496:16-17-6026:23-10118:22-69612:8-57415:3-27515:26-62616: l-39816:4-34916:33-349,39617: 15-95719: 1-55119:2-56819:21-347, 349,39819:22-55120-62220~6-62220:7-B-62220:9-62220:29-55221:30-31-34922: l-2-55 123:14-l 19529: lo-60330:6-2 1131:18-54731:24-547

Isaiah

1:2-5721:5-8391:18-6411:20-5721:24-6095: l-7-7655:8-8945: 19-3476-184, 12466: l-4-2846:1-5-3126:2-4406:2-3-4426:3--12306:5-285-866:8-328-296:9-lo-9257: 14-7438: 1 l-2028: 13-6919:7-76710:5-12-39510:13-395-9610:20-21-61011: l-5-86911:2-5-86911:6-7-121112: l-60414:12-15-58614:24-347, 35314:24-27-34814:26-34714:27-347, 35317:1-57419: 12-34719: 14-57419: 17-34720: l-23721:3-57421:4-566

1254 Scripture Index Scripture Index 1255

22:11-347,348,35123:9-34724: l-57425:8- 117326:19-l 194, 120028:7-565, 56628:11-12-21029:24-56632:15-867, 86932: 16-20-86933:14-123837: 16-371,37237:26-347,34839:7-55540-76540:9-76440: 12-34940: 12- 13-37240:13-35240:13-14-35140:31-21941:20-36842: l-4-86942:21-79243: l-36843~7-36844-45-40 144:3-5-86944~6-27444:24-37 144:28-35445:7-36845: 12-368, 37 145: 18-36845:22-93045:22-25- 120746:4-55246: lo-35346:10-11-347, 34848:11-35252:7-764, 106153-690,805, 806, 81153:4-837, 839, 840, 84153:5-6-S 13.53~6-623, 805, 813, 830,

83453: 1 l-83953:12-568, 690, 806,

813,839,84155:1-91955:7-62655:8-34755:8-9-3 12

55:10-11-101157:15-284,312-13,98157:20-21-57559:7-a-62359:9-62359:10-12-62359:20-623,93659:23-62361-86961:1-2-550, 871, 106061:1-3-86961:2-60962:4- 103563:4-60963: lo-603,86963: 1 l-30365:25-121166:24-1238

Jeremiah

1:5-555l : l l -6873: 10-5744:4-604, 976, 10947: 12-14-6099:24-2879:25-26- 109410:5, lo-290lO:lO-11-271lO:ll-12-371, 37210: 12-13-34910:23-24-34910:24-60411: 19-62611:20-95512:7-10-103512:8-60217:4-123817:9-617, 62518:1-18718: 1 l-34720:9-101120:15-106020: 18-55523~20-34823:23-31623~23-24-27323:24-30223:29-101126:3-34726: 18-57429: 1 l-347

30:4-20231:9-96531:33-62532: 15,17-27632: 19-34734:18-57136:3-34742:6-57744:15-103146: lo-60949~20-34750:45-34751:29-347

Lamentations

2:4-5-6032:8-3473:22-23-2795:7-8395:12-552

Ezekiel

1:3-6871:6-4401:13-4402:2-8672:3-5722:4-98 18~3-867l l : l - 8 6 711:19-62511:19-20-942,98111:24-86712:1,8,17,21,26-18714: 13-57415:8-57417: 17-103218:4- 117018:20-803,117O18:21-22-l 17118:24-57218:30-32-93320:9-35225: 14-60927:27- 103229:1-21232:22- 103233:7-l l-93333:11-91934:6-56536:25-26-98 136:26-28-869

37:12-14-l 19444:7- 109444:9-1094

Daniel

2:21-3954:13,17,23-4384:2425-3954:3435-3977: 10-4407: 13-6909:11-5719:21-4409:27- 122010:6-44012: l-34812:2-1194,1200,1217,

123812:3-1234

Hosea

l:l-1871:6-11-10431:9-10-10352:23-1035,1043,12074:15-5775:5-5755: 13-8396:7-57 18:1-5719:14-5559: 15-60210:18-577l l : l - 9 6 513:14-l 17314: l(2)-575

Joel

l:l-1872: 16- 10942:28-866,1043,10942:28-29-8692:31-32-6913: 12-689

Amos

l -3 -7643:1-187,2024:13-368,8505:11-12-590-915:12-288,550

5:15,24-2896:3-576

Jonah

1:7-3963:5-348

Micah

1:6-5742:3-3473:8-3033: 12-5744:4-2024: 12-3476:8-785

Habakkuk

1: 13-2852~4-9382: 15-622

Haggai

2:5-303

Zechariah

1:6-3481:9-8504:6-8677:2-810,8118: 17-6028:22-810,81114:4-122014:9-324

Malachi

1:9-810,8112: lo-9622:l l-5743:6-278

Matthew

1:5-5441:18-8701: 18-25-743,7471:20-69 1,8701:20-21-7431:21-8271:22-3491~23-743

2: 15-3492:22-8 132:23-3493:2-937, 10973:6- 10973:7-8- 10963:l l-8703: 16-8703:16-17-330,8613: 17-2924:1-775,8714: l-l l-4504:2-7074:3-4484:4-7 114:8-9-6454: 14-3494: 17-767,9374: 18-22-93 14~24-4495:13-16-9795:16-352,647,12265:17-190,9775:18-203,12265:21-22-577,578,627,

6875:21-28-9725:23-24-g 155:27-28-578,627,6875:29-30-905,10075:38-8135:39- 10075:43-45-9695:&L-592,10075:45-294,303,395,

401-02,12265:48-285,607,910,97

973,12276:1-12266:2-5786:5-5786:9-12266:9-lo-12316:10-12276: 12-2976: 14- 12276: 16-5786: 19-20-l 2276:24-6466:25-294,5226:25-29-3486:25-30-303,3956:25-33-27 1

1,

I256

6:25-34-492,964,975 11:15-187 16:13-19-28 21:11-763 24:45-51-l 193, 12196:26-294,324,390, 11:20-24-764 16:14-926 21:25-1226 24:50- 1188

1226,1227 11:21-24-1240 16:15-17-674 21:29-936 25-3 116:26-30-377 11:24-1201 16: 16-926 21:31-326 25:1-13-l 1906:28-294 11:25-691,1226,1245 l&17-926,1226 2 1:32-936 25:5-l 1936:30-32-324 11:28-355,832,919,930 l&17-20-21 1 21:33-41-765 25:6- 12226:30-33-294,390 12:9-14-450 16:18-1031,1034,1041, 21:43-326 25:8-10-l 1906:31-32-587 12:17-349 1044,1048 21:46-763 25:13-l 188,12196:32-1227 12:22-449 l&18-19-1041,1183 22: 14-930 25: 14-30-597,123 17:3-617 12:22-32-448,674 16:19-1044,1075 22:29-32- 1195 25:19-11937:11-1226 12:24,27-448 16:22-250 22:30-438,439,443, 25:31-326,440,444,7:15-995 12:25-27-87 1 16:23-624 1198,1232 779,998,1186,12297: 16-20-996 12:28-326,330,450, 16:26-522 22~32-2 13 25:31-33-12027:21-996,1015,1226 775,861,871 16:27-1201 22:36-40-510 25:31-40-3097:21-23-1203 12:31-862,871 16:28-710 22:37-40-490 25:31-46-685,689,1000,7:22-996,1244 12:32-871,118l 17:1-B-1233 22:44-2 13 1013,1047,1058,1190,7:22-23-1015 12:33-35-627 17: 12-807 23:8-1081 1201,12037:23--570,996 12:37-956 17:15-18-449 23:10-12-122 25:32-12028 - 4 4 9 12:45-439,449 17:19-20-450 23:23-629 25~34-3688:5-13-405,450,544 12:50-1226 18: l-5-624 23:28-570 25:34-40-6148:11-12-544 13-764,1208 18:3-638,1103 24-1219 25:37-39-10138:12-1020,1021,1235 13: l-9-996 18:6-940,1092,1103 24-25-l 186,1193 25:40-310,10138:13-939 13:13-15-248 18:8-1038,1238 24:2-203,1193 25:41-451, 1020,1021,8: 16-439 13:1415-925 18:10-445,1226,1227 24:3-l 186,1219 1235,1236,12388:17-349,836,837,839 13: 16-926 18:14-1226 24:3-14-989 25:44-10138:20-550 13: 18-23-996 18:15-17-1055, 1082 24~4-989 25:45-10138:29,31-449 13: 19-448 18:17-567,1031,1038, 24:9-1221 25:46-614,1020,1021,9: 15-807 13:20-22-996 1048 24:11-13-989 1203,1235,1238,12399: 18-22-405 13:23-996 18:19-1226 24: 12-570 26:6-13-5489: 19-20-450 13:24-30-448,1047, 18:20-l 122 24: 12- 13-996 26:10-13-5489:20-22-547,838 1048 18:23-35-297 24:13-1060 26:20-7799:27-30-450 13:35-210,349,368 18:35- 1227 24:14-831,1193,1207 26:24-349,102O9:28-939 13:36-43- 1047 19:4-368 24:15-l 190 26:25-7099:35- 1060 13:37-43-1201 19:4-S-213 24:15-31-390 26:26-l 1189:35-36-296 13:38-448 19:4-6-122 24:21-368,1190,1221 26:26-28-95 1,11099:36-296,514,708 13:39-448 19:5-l 132 24:27-l 186,1192 26:29- 12329:38-69 1 13:39-42-444 19:8-368,399 24:29-l 190,1221,1226 26:34-70910: l-450 13:41-326,570,684, 19:13-15-l 103 24:29-31-1220,1224 26:36-70710:6-514 768,1203 19: 14-326,638,1092 24:29-35- 1201 26:37-70810:8-297,449 13&I-764 19:16-25-858 24:30-326,998, 1186, 26:39-5 1510:9-lo-229 13:46-764 19:16-30-1014 1190,1229 26:40-41-70710:22-996 13:47-SO-764 19:23-26-324 24:31-444,1203 26:42-40310:28-393,522,527, 13:55-750 19:24-326 24:34-710 26:53-440

534,536,1169,1183 13~57-763 19:26-277,758,858,946 24:35- 1226 26:56-34910:28-30-390 14: 14-296,708 19:28-768,943,1202, 24:36-438,44 1 26:63-68610:28-31-471,975 14~22-23-678 1230 24:36-39- 12 19 26:63-65-32610:29-235,294,377 14:22-33-277,405 20:13-15-916 24:36-M- 1187 26:64- 118610:29-30-275,303 14:35-36-450 20:20-28-624 24:37-l 186,119O 26:65-66-68710:30-403 15:2-3-57 1 20:27-122 24:37-39-775 26:68-77210:30-31-294 15:13-1227 20:28-793,807,8 13, 24:39- 1186 27:3-93610:31-235 15:18-19-627 828,830,1067 24:42- 1186 27:4-7 1910:32-390,1226 15:32-708 20: 34-708 24:43-1219 27:5-23010:33- 1226 16-926 21:4-349 24:44-l 186,1188 27:19-719

Scripture Index Scripture Index 1257

27:32- 122227~42-94027~46-32427~50-52327:54-19128:2-122728:3-44028:18-1038,1052,107328:1&20-121-22,120728:19-327,698,831,

859,860,1052,1089,1094,1097

28:19-20-211,273,329,1039,1073,1096

28:20-766,779,949,1040,1052,1055,1122,1189

Mark

1:8-8701: lo-870,1104l : l l - 7 3 11: 12-87 11:14-10611:14-15-10601:15-940,10921: 16-20-93 11:24-4491:25-4501:26-4491:34-4491:41-296,5152:5-6842:7-6842:8-9-6852:8-lo-3262: 19-20-8072:27-28-6853 - 7 4 93:5-7083:19-862,1020,10213:20-30-6743:21-748,7493:22-4483~22-30-4483:27-12063:29-862,1020,10213:31-748,7493:33-35-7493:35-9694:35-41-2774:39-3955 - 4 4 9

1258 Scripture Index Scripture Index 1259

5:2-4-4495:5-4495:7,9,10-4495:36-567,9396:3-746,7506:5-6-4506:6-405,7096:8-2296: 13-4496:17-29-10586~34-2967:24-30-5448:18-2488:31-8068:32-33-948:35-471,10668:36-9058:38-441,12299:1-7109:2-8- 12339: 17-4499: 19-949:20-4499:21-7109:23-24-4509:24-5889:25-449,4509:29-4509:33-37-6249:34-949:43- 11839:43-48-l 183,12389:48- 118310:6-36910:13-16-1091,110310:14-708,109210:15-l 10310:17-31-551,101410:21-70810:25-55010:29-30- 106010:35-39-95410:35-45-62410:37-40-77910:39-95410:45-767,793,807,

813,82810:46-52-83812:13-17-51512: 17,24-27-32412:23- 119812:24-l 19512:24-27-566,1195

12:25-123212:26-71012:26-27- 119512:28-31-51012:28-34-49012:30-58013:5-6-56613:7-35013:10-350,106O13: 13-99613:19-369,122l13:20-32613:24-122113:26-l 186,119O13:30-71013:32-696,710,772,

122713:32-33-l 18713:35-l 187,118814:21-34914:22-24-95 1,110914:26-72-9414:32-42-70914:62-32615:34-70916:5-44016:7-29716:9-20-109816:16-1098

John

Luke

1: 13-20-4441:15-870, 10921: 17-5731:26-44 11:26-38-444,7431:34-7431:35-330, 756, 858, 8701:38-7571:41-42-2 121:41-44-5541:41-45-5481:46-47-5521:46-55-548,7571:52-3961:59-79-2122: l-4032:9-4402:11-6912:13-438, 12272:13-14-4442:14-12292:15-1227

2:22-40-770 9:3-229 17:24-12262:24-550 9:23-938 18:15-17-l 103

2:36-38-548 9:26-440 18:16-17-1092

2:49-350 9:27-7 10 18:17-1014, 1103

2: 52-707 9:2&36- 1233 18:18-30-1013, 1014

3: l-2-2 12 9:39-449 18:22-1014

3: 16-870 9:46-48-624 19:1-10-931

3: 19-20-1058 9:47-709 19: lo-787

3:22-870 9:52-437 19:11-27-1193, 1234

4: 1-871 10:8-9-1156 19:38-1229

4: 1-2-871 10: 17-872 20:27-40- 1233

4: 14-871 10: 17-20-448 20:34-38-l 195

4: 16-7 11 10:18-450, 1159 20:35-1200, 1217, 1232

4: 18-550 10:21-872,893 20:36-439

4: 18-19-1060 10:25-37-1058 21:1-4-547

4: M-21-869,871 10:26-27-510 21:20-22-349

4:21-550 10:27-288,522,784 21:27-l 186, 1190

4~22-750 10:27-28-490 21:36-1221

4~25-1226 10:29-37-1053 22:3-448

4:40-41-449 ll:l-13-975 22:19-20-951, 1109

4:43-350 ll:&lO-406 22:22-347,349,354,361

5-300,407 l l : l l - 8 1 3 22:25-27- 108 1

5:8-191,286, 1246 ll:ll-13-964 22:28-30-1202, 1230

5:24-409 11: 1423-448 22:30-954

6:8-709 11: 1425-674 22:31-769

6:9- 1169 11:15, 19-448 22:31-34-450

6:12-711 11:20-450 22:32-769

6:20-550 11:26-439 22:42-514

6:27-1007 11:50-368 22:43- 1227

6:29- 1007 12:4-523 22:44-720

6:35-1007 12:4-S- 1169 23~34-832

6~43-45-627 12:8-441 23:35-773

7:9-709 12:8-g-326, 684 23~37-772, 806

7:13-515 12:47-48- 1240 23:40-250

7:19-675, 941 12:50-709 23:41-719

7:21-439 13: 16-448 23:43-527, 1177, 1183

7:22-550, 1060 13:32-449 23:46-522, 523, 1172,

7~24-437 14:14-1200, 1217 1177

7:29-957 14:23-930 23:49-548

7:35-957 14:26-l 169 23:55-56-548

7:36-SO-1013 15-293, 547 24:1-11-549

7:44-48-1013 15: l-7-566 24:4-440

7~47-938 15:3-7-403, 471 24: 19-764

7:50-1013 15:10-326,441,444,684 24:25-27-2 10

8 - 4 4 9 15:18-1226 24:28-31-l 199

8:2-439 15:21-1226 24:36-43-7 18

8:11-1011 16:17-1226 24:38-39- 1197

8:14-551 16:19-31-527,775, 1017, 24:39-268,7 12

8:25-395 1177, 1183, 1236 24:43-l 232

8:27-449 16:22-444,445 24:44-45-2 10

8:28, 30-449 16:25-550-51 24~46-47-937

8:50-939 16:26-1236 24:49-330

9: l-449 17:11-19-838 24:50-51-777

l:l-332, 700-011: l-3-3661:3-371, 372, 598, 768,

8501:9-4 1, 765l:lO-11-6451:12-940, 961, 9621:12-13-943, 9441:13-751) 7571:14-712,715,722,725,

7691:18-267,734, 737, 7641:29-807,813, 8301:32-8701:33-34-33 11:35-51-9311:47-48-7092: 1 l-9402:23-9402:25-7093-943313-873, 943, 11033:4-9433:5-624, 1008, 1098,

11033:5-6-757, 8733:5-8-858, 9433:6-945, 10983:7-70, 9433:7-8- 10983:8-327, 873,9443:13-686,726,764,12273:14-15-3503:16-292,731, 734, 832,

833, 1020, 10213:16-17-8303: 17-8063: 18-9403:19-11593:19-21-6473:23-l 1043:27- 12263:31-12273:36-573, 605, 1160,

12214-544, 5474:3, 6-4014:6-7074:9-10534: 18-7094:20-24- 10474:21-268

1260 Scripture Index Scripture Index 1261

4~24-267, 12314:34-5145:2-18-6885:21-6875:22-12025:24-l 1595:25--l 160, 11955:25-29- 11835:26-27 15:27-12025:27-29-12015:28-29-1020, 1195,

12005:29-1021, 1203, 12175:30-5 145:39-42-6295:56-58- 10096: 14-7646:32-8086:37-354, 916, 926, 927,

9426:38-514, 8066:39-40- 11956:42-12276:44-354, 915, 916, 926,

927, 942, 11956:45-926, 9426:50-8086:51-808, 12276:52-58-8086:53-95 16:53-56- 11186:54- 11956:56-58- 10086:62-726, 7776:63-943, 9486:65-9 166:68-69-9966:69-7 196:70-9967:5-7507:7-6447~40-7647:52-7648:23-3 13, 6468:29-7 198:40-7 118:41-7468:44-X18, 44 I, 4488:46-7 198:48--- I OS38:58-685, 734, 7648:59-686

9 - 4 0 79:2-3-430, 8389:4-515, 8729: 17-76410-99410:3-24910:3-6-403lO:lO-943lO:ll-403, 82710: 14-40310: 15-82710:17-18-81710:18-79910:26-27-82710:27-40310:27-30-390, 988, 99210:28-943, 99210:28-29-99210:30-332, 685,69810:34-35-21010:35-203,21310:36-80611-119511:3-708ll:ll--117711:14-709,117711:24-25-l 19511:25-68711:25-26-120011:33-70911:35-709, 117111:38-70911:42-828, 98811:49-50-80711:50-81412-18412:6-99512:27-522,70912:28-17912:31-450,647, 116012~32-33-64712:38-34912:48-120313:14-16-12213:21-52213:23-70813:37-38-l 16914-16-212, 249, 250,

251, 338, 84714: l-3-76514:1-7-25114:2-77714:2-3-778, 874, 1227

14:3-l 186, 118814:6-77214:7-9-68514:8-11-25114:9-186, 191, 332, 703,

764

14:12-249, 765, 777,779,873,950, 1039

14:13-14-76514:15-964,978, 105214:16-249,331,86014: 16- 17-87414:17-250,644,77914:18-104014: 18-24-76514: 19-64414:21-964, 105214:22-64414:23-686, 949, 951,

1040, 1122, 118914:24-33 114:26-249, 33 1, 766,

853, 860, 861, 874, 982,1040

14:27-76514:28-696,69814:30-450,64514:31-29215-97515:1-11-988, 103715:1-17-25115:3-101215:4-95315:4-5-949, 97415:4-7-l 12215:5-766, 97515:7-97515:8-35215:9-17-29215:10-719,97415:11-293, 708, 97515:12-29715:13-293, 419, 515,

807, 817, 82715:14-978, 105215:14-15-962, 96415:15-602, 97515:16-357, 916, 92615:18-64715:18-19-64415:20-95415:25-210

15:26-249, 331, 332,852, 860,874

15:26-27-25016:5-77716:7-249, 331, 779, 860,

873, 1039, 104016:8-250,862, 103916:&11-327,858,872,

94216: lo-77716:11-45016: 13-249, 250, 858,

859, 1040, 124516:13-14-332, 860, 87416:13-15-33116:13-18-76616: 14-250,847,86016:23-76616:28-33 1,77716:33-647, 122117-514,769,83317:1--51417: l-5-99817:2-35417:3-290,696,697, 80817:4-514,86017:§-51417:6-35417:9-354, 827, 82817: 12-34917:13-708,76917:14-64417:15-769, 122217:17-290, 101217:19-290,80717:20-76917:20-23-l 13017:21-332, 698, 769,

113317:21-22-514, 72517:24-352, 368, 514,

828, 99817:25-64518:4-70918:9-34918: 14-80718:36-76718:37-78719:7-326, 68619:24-34919:28-349, 70719:30-52319:34-707

19:36-34919:39-93420: 14-18-54820:17-777, 122720:21-22-33 120:22-23-1008, 107520:24-29-7 1820:25-94 120:25-27-77720:27-l 197, 119920:28-326,691,94120:29-94 120:31-8921:9-14-123221:9-15-119921:18-l 19321:25-90, 200

Acts

l -10811: l-7661:45-8731:6-12191:6-l l-7771:7-l 1881:8-122, 273, 831, 866,

874, 950, 1039, 1052,1073

1:9-10-I 189l:lO-11-1227l:ll-1186, 1188, 11891: 14-7451:16-202, 350, 8671:18-230, 2371:23-26-397, 10751:24-69 12-880, 10402~4-2 122:5-10432:16-17-l 1592:16-21-350, 8662: 17- 10432:20-21-6912:22-7 11, 10432~22-36-9 12:23-347, 350, 354, 356,

361, 398, 5702~24-28-3502:24-32- 11952:27-31-7742:28- 10082:31-l 1832:33-330, 861, 998

2:33-36-7792~34-35-2 132:36-400, 696, 6972:37--1047, 10992:37-41-10972:38-330, 861, 932, 937,

1008, 1047, 1094, 10992:39-10942:41-1040, 1091, 10932:44-45- 10402:47-691, 1040, 10473: 12-26- 10473:13-15-9983:17-5653:17-26-10993: 18-2023:19-934, 10993:19-21-l 1873:21-2023:22-7644- 10994-5-22114:7-12-10474:8-12-10994:12-10944:24-37 14~25-202, 213, 8674~27-28-350, 3544~28-3474:31-1040, 10994:32-1040, 10864:32-33- 11334:33-10404:34-35-10405-857, 1047, 1048, 10555:1-11-991, 12015:3-448, 8575~3-4-326-27, 8625:4-8575:11-10325: 19-4445:31-779, 9986-1081, 10856:3-1073, 10756:6-1073, 10747 - 2 3 47:4-2 147:6-229, 2347:38-10487:51-862,9817:53-4447:56-l 1727:59-l 172, 1177

1262

7:60--l 172, 11778 - 8 8 08:1-1032, 10338:7-4498:12-10978:17-10088:26-4448:36-l 1048:36-38-10918:38-39-l 1048:39-6919:1-19-9319:4-7-9349:5-7889:9-9349:17-18-9349:18-19-l 1019:31-691, 10339:42-94010-88010:3-7-44410:9-16-544lO:ll-13-104010:14-104010: 17-33-54410:17-48-104110:22-44 110:34-35-54410:36-69 110:38-44810:42-347, 120210:43-940, 109410:44-48-544, 110310:48-1091, 110211:13-44411:14-1091, 110211:17-94011:21-69111:22-103211:30-107412:1-103212:5-103212:6-11-44412:7-11-441, 44412: 15-44512:20-23-490n12~23-44413:1--1032, 103313:1-3--10x113:10-12-69113:16-41-18213:32-37- 1 19513:34-213

13:34-35-77413:36-l 17713:48-354, 916, 92614:2-57314:15-37114:15-17-16914: 16-39914: 17-29414:22-122114:23-1032, 1073, 1075,

1081, 108214:27-1033, 108115-107715:1-2-108415:2-3-108115:22-1081, 108615:26-52215:28-86115:38-41-21215:41-103316:5-103316:14-691, 931, 93416:15-1091, 110216:25-34-106416:30-934, 1047, 109916:31-121, 932, 940,

1047, 109916:31-33- 109316:31-34-1091, 110216:33-l 10217:16-34-106517:22-31-16917:23-172, 544, 101617:24-268,371,544,69117~2425-27317:24-29-96217:25-271, 54417:26-277, 347, 350,

396, 54417:27-28-30217:28-170,49717:29-96217:30-565,624,831,93717:30-31-91917:31-347, 120117:32-34-17117:34-43518-105518:8-1091, 1097, 110218:18--109118:26-691, 105519-88019:1-7-1097

Scripture Index Scripture Index 1263

19:4--94019:9--57319:11-12-21219: 12-439,44919:32-103119:39-103119:41-103120:17-1075, 108020:19-69120:28-827, 1075, 108121:14-69121:21-578, 109422:16-1008, 110122: 19-94023:3-57 123:6- 119623:8-9-43824:14-15-120024:21-l 19624:25-120127:23-44428:15-1222

Romans

l-164,172,1016l-2-168,171l:l-4-10631:3-7511:3-4-1062,10631:7-9301:13--5651:15-165,10651:15-16-1681:16-169,1062,1063,

10651:16-17-1681:16-27-10121:18-605,809,811,12211:18-23-9251:18-32-163, 165, 168,

6281: 18-3:20-33 11:19-1691:19-20-1701:20-l 54,3691:21-170,248,607,618,

6281:24-3991:26-3991:26-27-6281:27--5661:28-3991:30--573

2-172,1016 5:8-lo-6042:1-16-173 5:9-809,811, 1221

2:3-689 5:9-10-9992:3-16-l 183 5: lo-9632:4-296 5:12-611,612,625,631,2:5-605,811,1020, 636,637,652

1201,1235 .5:12-19-635,6362:8-8 11 5:12-21-l 18,476,6352: 12-570,1203 5: 13-9772:14-172 5: 14-57 12:14-15-169 5:15-632,636,637,711,2:14-16-168 10212: 15-628 5: 16-6322:16-1063 5:17-632,636,637,638,2:23-57 1 711,756,10212:2§--57 1 5: 18-632,832,1020,2:27--57 1 10212:28-29-98 1,1043 5:19-567,632,711,10212:29-249,1036,1100 5:20-9773-171,172,173,622, 6: l-2-959

623,925 6:1-ll-944,1091,11003:1-23-915 6:3-10913:9-l l-925 6:3-4-818, 11013:9-20-942,1011 6:3-5-1091,1101,11043: 12-63 1 6:4-614,949,998,10953:19-210 6:5-10913:20-977 6:6-628,llOS3:21-26-809 6:6-8-8223:21-8:1-331 6: 1 l-8983:23-622,624 6: 12-6283:25-809,810,1012 6:17-616,6293:25-26-g 11 6:23-288,611,614,616,3:26-818,956 803,959,1171,12373:28-30-1012 7 - 9 7 23:29-1043 7:5-6273:31-977 7:7-9774:3-1012,1014 7: 12-9774:5-940,956 7: 14-9774:9-1012 7: 18-5984:11-!043 7: 18-19-9724:12-1012 7:22-9774:13-18-1094 7~24-6284:15-571,811 7:25-9774:16-1043 8-428,875,9994: 17-369 8: l-822,9534:18-1043 8: l-17-9605-487 8:2-616,8755: l-963 8~2-30-33 15:1-5-1086 8:3-8085:3-1221 8:3-4-9775:6-8-g 14 8:4-875,9705:6-lo-293 8:5-875,9705:8-808,809,832,963 8:7-604

8:9-875,9708:9-lo-1040,11198:9-ll-952,11198: lo-6288:11-859,875,11968:13-628,875,970,9718: 14-875,9708:14-16-9648:15-17-8758: 16-9708:16-17-9648: 17-949,9758: 18-426,9988:18-23-6138:18-25-170,652,655,

891,997,lOOl8:19-l 1828: 19-23- 12 118:19-25-841,11938:20-6558~20-23-8378:21-10018:21-22-6558:22-23- 11978:23-9998:26-449,862,9888:26-27-875,9708:28-347,35 1,40 1,402,

426,833,9128:28-29-8278:29-347,351,355,356,

402,426,497,51.5,696,920,926,970

8:29-30-9978:30-347,9308~31-34-8228:31-39-9878:32-808,809,814,827,

8338:33-8278:33-34-956,10008:35-3908:38-4388:38-39-390,649,lOOO9-912,914,916,9229-11-3509:6- 10369:6-18-9129:7-8- 10439: 1 l-3479:11-13-3569:15-16-9179:18-356

1264

9:20-21-Y 169:20-23-3509:20-24-3579:22-296,605,811,10209:23-3479:24-10369:24-25- 10439:24-26- 10359:33-94010-17310:9-lo-2910: 1 l-94010:13-691,lOll10:14-171lO:P4-15-1011,102210:16-106211:2-35611:7-10-102211:8,10-24811:13-15-40011:15-815,104311:21-22-102211:25-40011:25-26- 103811:26-104311:28-106211:29-93011:32-1019,1021, 103811:33-275-7611:34-35111:36-351-5212-108612: l-2-97 112:2-953,124412:3-6-39612:6-a-87612:9-97 112:16-17-97112:19-288,609,81113: l-7- 106813:4-S-8 1113:8-lo-97714:4-98814:8-53 114:10--120214:11-69114:15-831,83315:16-330,86115:19--858, 106316:2--54Y16:3-4--54916:5-m IO.3316:6--54Y

16: 12-54916:13-54916:17-103816:20-45016:25-26- 1063

1 Corinthians

1:2-968,1032,1033,1082

1:45-9481:7-1187,1192,11931:8-10001:9-291,930l:lO-17-10381:16-l 1021: 18-249,9701:20-6441:20-21-2481:21-6441:23-75,2491:23-24-9301:24-2491:26-9301:27-6441:28-6442:6-16-9312:7-249,347,3522:8-691,7252:9-lo-12322:10-11-8582: 1 l-2482: 12-6442: 13-2492:13-14-2552: 14-248,249,6442:14-3:4-5212: 16-249,3523:1-2-10113: l-9- 10383:2-10113:14-15-12343:15-l 1813: 16-4493:16-17-327,569,850,

857,10393: 19-248,6443:22-6 134:5-l 183,12024:6-7-3Y64:9-44 1,4444:15-10625-10825:1-2-1055

Scripture Index Scripture Index 1265

5:1-5-1048, 1125 11:22-10345:3-522 11:23-1885:5-522 11:23-29-l 1095:7-809 11:24-25-11105:12-13-1038 11:26-1110,1111,112~6:2-647 11:27-577,11116:2-3- 1202 11:27-28- 11246:9-566,570 11:27-32-l 1236: 12-20- 1197 11:27-34-11126:13-1197 11:2&29-11116:14-l 197 11:29-1111,11246:15-l 197 11:30-11236:19-1039,1197 11:32-6476:19-20-327,857,1041 12-859,876,1037,10866:20-793,1197 12-14-8727:5-448 12:3-9317:7-557 12:46-330,859,8617:8-557 12:4-ll-327,396,8767%11-1232 12:7-8767:25--557 12:11-861,877,881,7:25-35- 1232 1041,10567:26-557 12:12-880,10377:27-557 12:12-13--1038,11327:32-35-557 12:13-880,952,1037,7:39-40-557 1039,1091,11467:40--188 12:14-21-8768:4,6-324 12:1425-1037816-371-72 12: 18-3508:11-831,833 12:22-26-8779:12-1063 12:26-1038,10559:14-1062 12:27-10379:16-1065 12:27-31-10379:21-570 12:28-1034,10759:23- 1062 12:28-30-8769:27-990 12:31-87810:8-236 13-29310:12-451,989 13:1-3-88210:13-390,401,451, 13:8-878,881

973,988 13:9-lo-87810:15-17-l 112 13:9-12-122810:17-1115,1126 13:12-766,100010:32-1034 14-876,105611-l 124 14:1-87811:5-549 14:3-4-105611:7-497 14:45-1037,105411: 10-444 14:5-87611:13-813 14:12-876,1037,105511:15-813 14:15-17-105711:17-19-1038 14:17-105511:17-22-l 112 14:18-87811:18--1111 14:21-21011:20-1111 14:26-105511:21-1111 14~27-882

14:28-88214:33-36-54914:39-88214:40-108515-91,223,537,693,

1062,1168,1171,1181,1195,1196

15:1-106215:1-4-106315:1-11-67015:2-106415:3-106315:3-B-106215:6-l 17715:12-14-119615:12-19-71815:15-102115:17-123,61215:17-18-102115:18-l 17715:19-102115:20-692,1063,117715:21-477,711,117115:22-477,53 1,948,

1020,102115:22-24-121715:23-1187,121715:24-438,652,121715:26-421,652,117115:37-l 19815:38-35015:38-50-100115:42-l 19815:44-521,777,1197,

119815:45-47715:47-49-7 1115:50-523,119815:51-l 17715:51-52-1001,119515:54-l 16015:54-56-l 16815:54-57-652,822,117215:55-l 17315:55-56-61216:2- 105716:19-103316:22-70 1

2 Corinthians

l:l-1032,10331:18-22-2911:21-22-330,X61

2: 1 l-4482:12-10633:3-18-10363: 13-2493:1415-6283: 16-2493:18-249, 497, 5164:2-2914:3-4-915, 9254:4-170, 248, 448, 6284~6-3694:7-7574:11-5234:11-12-11694: 16-9534: 17-426, 9995-24n, 223, 11815:1-5-10015:1-10-1168, 1183, 11955:2-4-5375:3-4-5275:4-10015:8-523, 527, 11835:10-523, 689, 12025: 14-8085:14-15-8305:15-8145: 16-7085:17-943, 944, 948, 949,

11605:18-10175:19-733,787,808,9315:21-719, 8036:9-5656: 147: l-2866: 15-4486:16-10356:17-18-9787: lo-6458:18-10629:13-106310:6-56710:14-106311:4-106211:7-106211:13-107311:14-15-44812:1-lo-84112:7-44812:9-95412:9-lo-40613:11-29213:14-327, 329, 330,

698, 859, 860

1266

Galatians

1:2- 10321:6- 10641:6-g- 10631:7-10631:8-10641:8-9-10741:9-1064l:ll-1062l:ll-24-10791:12-10621:15-217, 3501:15-16-3961:15-17-10741:22--5652:2- 10622:3-S-10942:5-10622:6-10382: 1 l-5452:11-12-2122:14-10622:14-21-2122:16-9402:18--5712:20-733,814, 898, 944,

948,949,950,954,10373: l-5-65 13:1-14-l 1813: l-29-33 13:6-959, 976, 10143:6-g-172, 5453:8-3503:9- 10643:10-977, 10643:10-11-172, 959, 9643:10-14-1723:13-809, 813, 814, 822,

11723:13-18-10943:16-2133:19-435,441, 444, 571,

9773: 19-29- 1723~22-6233:23-24- 1723:26-27- 109 13:27--548, 11033:28--545, 548, 558,

1038, 10654: l-7-33 I4:4-712, 725, 747, 751,

770

4:4-S--350, 804, 9614:5-7704:6-330, 8614:8-g-6454:8-S: 15-33 14:21-22-210S-875,9705:1-12-10995:2-6-10945:3-9775:13-15-9595:13-16-9645: 16-875, 9705:16-17-4505:16-24-5985:16-6:10-3315: 17-6275:19-21-578, 627, 8755: 19-23-94s5:22-8755:22-23-875, 970, 973,

10395:22-25-9705:24-6285:2425-9445:25-9706:1-1038, 10486:2-1038, 10556:7-5656:7-g-431, 610, 8036:8-8036:12-13-10946:14-648,718,9446:15-10946: 17-393

Ephesians

l - 9 2 21:3-4-9481:4-351, 368, 10001:4-5-9161:5-278, 347, 9611:5-6-3521:5-g-2951:6-g-9481:7-8091:9-278, 3471:9-lo-1236l:lO--1037, 1227l:ll-347,353,397l:ll-12-3501:12-14-3521:13--1064

Scripture index Scripture Index 1267

1: 13-14-9991:14-8601:18-249, 9301:20-7771:20-22-7791:22-23-1034, 1036,

11332:1-776, 943, 9442:1-2-631, 11702:1-3-9152:1-lo-9442:2-573,6452:3-623,645, 8112:5-631,776, 943, 944,

9492:5-6-9442:6-9432:7-g-2952%9-63 1,959, 960,

1012, 11812%lo-3522:10-347, 354, 94.5, 948,

9602: 13-8092: 14-5452:14-16-l 1332:15-10382:16-18-7252:19-l 1322:20-22-l 132, 11332:21-22-10393:9-37 13:10-441, 10343:11-347,3513:1417-8613:1419-251,3303:21-274, 10344-l 1304:1-969, 11304:3- 11304:4- 10344:4-6-1038, 1130, 11334:5-l 1334:6-3164:8- 10-773, 774, 7774:l l-875, 876, 10554:11-12-10754:11-14-l 1334:11-16-10384:12-10544:13-971, 9734: 14-5664:16-1054, 1130

4: 18-5654:18-19-6284:23-24-4974:27-4494:29- 10544~30-8624:32-9635:2-8095:6-573,8115: 14-9335:18-622, 8815:23-10345:24-10345:25-827, 10345:25-27- 10365:26-969, 10085:27-286, 10345:31-l 1325:32-952, 10346:1-3-5526:2-9776: 10-20-4506: 1 l-4486:12-438, 439, 449,6506:15-10646:17-10126:19-1062

Philippians

1:5-10621:6-945, 970,9881:7-1062, 10641:9-11-10001:12-10621:16-1062, 10641:19-26-l 168, 11831:20-23-l 1721:23-l 1831:27-1062, 10631:29-9402 - 7 6 82:2-11312:3-1222:3-4-l 1312:3-5-6192:5-8-1068, 11312:5-l l-325, 689-902:6-6902:6-7-734, 735, 7702~7-732, 735, 10672:8-10672:9-lo-7682:9- 1 l-778

2:10-11-244, 779, 1019,1021, 1236

2:11-6912:12-13-734, 9712: 13-2782:15-6462:22- 10623:3- 10363:&10-9543:&l 1-9753:10-1783:11-1200, 12173: 14-9303:20-21-1001, 1182,

1187, 11963:21-9984:3-10624:5-l 1934:11-13-3914: 13-9534:15-10624:19-391, 964

Colossians

1:5-1062, 12271:9-2491: 13-14-7251:13-23-l 1321:15-696, 697, 1037,

11961:15-16-l 1321: 15-20-6891:16-352, 371, 438, 439,

650, 10371:17-388,598,768,11321:18-692, 768, 1034,

1037, 1132, 11961:19-3501:19-20-1020, 1021,

11321:20-8091:21-23-9891:22- 10001:23-1062, 10641:24- 10341:26-27-9521:27-948, 1037, 11892:8-645, 6492:9-689, 734, 7352:9-10-10372:11-12-1095, 11002: 13-630, 7762:13-15-651

2: 14-6492:15-438, 6492:16-19-6502:19-10372:20-649, 9493: l-9493:4-l 1823:6-573, 8113:9-10-9703: lo-4983:11-10383:14-15-11323~25-5704:15-1033

1 Thessalonians

l:l-10321:4-10351:5-211, 2511:9-271, 290l:lO-811, 1218, 1221,

12272:2-10622:4-10622:9-10622: 12-9302:13-211, 2512:16-8112: 18-4482:19-11873:2-10633:3-12213: 5-4483:13-286, 11974-l 153417-2864:13-l 1534:13-15-l 1774:13-16-11954:15-16-11874:15-17-l 1914:16-438, 441, 948,

1188, 1190, 1217, 12274:16-17-444, 11824:17-1218, 1222, 1224,

12274:18-22, 1153, 12205:2-3- 11905:9-811, 1218, 12215:10-8095: 12- 10775: 19-862

1268

5:23-52 1, 522, 969, 972,1147

5:24-291

2 Thessalonians

1:5-2:12-l 1831:6-7-l 1921:7-l 187, 12271:8-1063, 12211:9-1020, 1235, 12381:10-l 1872:1-l 1872:1-12-5712:3-5732:8-570, 1187, 11922:9-12-5662:10-12-3982: 13-3682:13-14-330, 861, 10352: 14-930

1 Timothy

1:5-7111:6-9951:6-7-9951:9-5701: 16-9401: 17-2671: 19-20-99 1, 9952:3-4-9192:5-778, 10862:5-6-3242:6-814, 8302: 14-57 1, 7563-l 1243:1-2-10753:1-13-10843:2-5573: 12-5573:16-712, 725, 733, 773,

774, 778, 9984:1--566, 5734:10-830, 834, 1019,

10214: 14- 10745:17-10775:21-444, 8506:10-S.516:14-l 187, I I926:15-16-267

2 Timothy

1:6-10091:8- 10621:9-347, 351, 930l:lO-351, 10641:12-9882:2-10562:8-10632: 12-9542:13-291, 11922:16-18-9912:17-18-9952:18-995, 11972:19-995, 10472:25-26-6292:26-4483:2--5733~2-4-6283:2-5-6283: 13-5663: 15-2023:15-17-10113:16-202,207n, 210,

220n, 859,8673: 17-2024:1-689, 1187, 12024:2-6184:8-1183, 1187, 11924: 10-9914: 1 l-209

Titus

1:2-2901:5-10821:5-9-10841:6-5571:7--10751:15-6282:11-295, 8312:13-998, 1187, 1192,

1193, 12202: 14-9693:3--5663:3-7-2953:5-858, 943, 1008,

1095, 1099

Philemon

13-1062

Hebrews

l - 3 2 5l:l-2-187, 190

Scripture Index Scripture Index 1269

l:l-3-198, 7651:2-326, 6891:3-388, 689, 765, 7781:4-7651:4-2:9-6891:5-326, 439, 7311:5-2:9-4391:6-7-2131:8-326, 689, 767l:lO-326, 369, 372l:lO-12-8581:13-4391:14-438,439,444, 8502: I-9902:2-444, 57 12:2-3-5672:3-4-8782:9-814,830,1020,10212: 14-15-4502:26- 11693:1-930, 12293: l-6-6893:2-6963:3-6-7653% 16-5733:10-5663:11-12293: 12-5733:12-14-9903:18-573, 12294:3-3684:7-3474:9-11-12294:12-521, 612, 10114: 13-2754: 14-7784:14-16-122, 10864: 14-5: lo-6894:15-208, 209, 515, 719,

720, 7215:2-3-5665:5-73 15:12-13--10115:12-14-10116-992,9946: l-6306:4-9926:4-6-990, 992, 993,

10206:6--5746:9-9936: lo-9946:l l-989, 994

6:11-12-9906:13-18-10946: 18-278, 2907:9-10-5547:21,24-25-1237:25-769, 779, 9887:26-7 199:1-lo-1239:6-15-8119:7-5659:10-10959:12-123,8129:14-630,719,8589:15-5719:23-10:25-95 19:24-778, 12279:26-3689:27-393,491, 531,611,

614, 841, 1168, 1178,1201, 1202

9:28-812,813, 118710:5-712, 81210:5-18-812lO:lO-812lO:ll-81210:12-779,81210:22-98910:25-105710:26-27-99010:27-120110:29-83 110:30-6091 l-97311:3-366, 36911:6-28, 271, 93911:17-19-6911:19-402, 119511:31--57312:2-426, 70812:5-9-96212:5-l 1-96512:6-l l-40212:7-96512: 17-93612:22-44012:22-24- 123 112:23-1034, 120213-81213:10-13-81213:17-107713:20-21-969, 972

James

1:13-230, 285, 596, 720

1:14-3991:14-15-5961:17-278, 9621:18-943,9441:23-25-10111:27-646,978, 10582:1-11-10582:4-S-55 12:9-289, 558, 5712: lo-5772:11--571, 9772:15-17-10582: 17-9602:18-10142:18-26-1010, 1013,

10142: 19-3242:20-10142:21-23-10142:26-960, 11693:9-4973:9-10-5134:1-2-6194:3-6464:4-604, 6464:7-4495:7-8- 11875:8-9-l 1935:14-15-8825:14-16-1008-095: 16-4055:17-18-899

1 Peter

l:l-2-330, 920, 9261:2-327, 356, 859, 8601:3-943,944, 10661:3-5-987, 9991:3-9-l 1961:4-5-12271:6-3901:6-7-4261:6-9-4021:7-391, 1187, 11921:8-9401:12-4411:13-l 187, 11921: 14-5651:20-356, 3681:21-9981:23-943, 944, 10111:25-10112:5- I I32

2:6-9402:8--5732:9-968, 11312:13-17-10682:21-7842:22-7 192:24-785, 813, 8413: l-5733:15-6913:18-19-773,774,775,

7763:20-296, 573, 77.53:21-1095, 10983:22-7794:46-773,7764:6-7764: 1 l-875-764:12-13-3914:13-954, 11924:17-5734:19-2915: l-9995:4-9995:5--5525:8-448

2 Peter

l:lO-930, 9891:16-11871:19-10111:19-21-2101:20-21-201, 220n1:21-202, 859, 8672:1-831, 8342:1-2-9912:4-447, 12032:5-10392:8--5702:9-22-4472:11-4413:3-4-l 1903:4-369, 11873:7-12013:9-296, 361, 832, 919,

12403:12-11873:15-2963:16-211

1 John

l - 9 7 3l:l--191, 368, 707

1270 Scripture Index

1:8--5661:8-lo-9721:9-2792: l-8602: 1-2-725, 8302:2-8342:6-7842:7- 1 l-2972:13-448,450, 10922:13-14-3682:15-16-6462~16-399, 5972:18-12212:22- 122 12:28- 11872:29-943,9443: l-9633:2-571,766, 1000, 12283:4-571) 9743:46-9743:6-9743:7--5663:8-368, 448, 4503:8-lo-4413:9-9883:11-18-2973: 12-4483:17-18-10584: l-9394:2-33 1, 7254:2-3a-700, 701, 7124:2-3-294:3-l 160, 12214:4-45 14~45-6474:6-2 11, 5664:8-2924:10-293, 818, 8234:13-14-3314: 14-725, 8304:15-7254: 16-2925:1-943,9445:4-943, 9445:4-S-6475:5-7255:7-3275: 10-9405: 12-6235: 13-940, 98Y

5: 18-448, 4505: 19-6455:20-249, 290

2 John

7-566, 1221

Jude

3-10656-447,492, 1203, 12387 - 1 2 3 89-214,438,44114-21420-21-330-31, 860-6121-l 19324- 10002 5 - 2 7 4Revelation

l-3- 10321:5-l 1961:8-2741:14-4402-3- 10823:7-2903:10-1221, 1222, 12243: 14-3693:21-779, 12024:8-4404:11-352, 366, 371, 6915:9-5455:11-4405:11-12-4445:13-3716: lo-2906:16-17-12217: 1 l-4447:14-12218: l-4-4448:6-9:21-4449:1-2-12359:11-123510:6-37 112-45012:3-44812:9-448, 56612: lo-44813:8-36814:6-44014:10-441.1221

14:10-11-123514:11-123815:4-28616:1-17-44416:14-43916:19-1221

17:8-36819:1-4-123019:5-123019:6-8-123019:9-123219:11-14-44419: 12-44019:15-122119:16-69119:20-6 1420-1208, 1212, 1213,

1215, 1216, 121720:2-451, 121320:3-56620:4-1202, 1210, 1213,

121420:4-6-l 196, 1210, 1212,

121420:5-1210, 121520:6-534, 614, 1170,

121420:7-10-100020~8-44820: lo-448,451, 1228,

123820:11-15-120120:13-l 19620:13-14-61420:14-614, 117321:1-2-100121:3-122821:3-4-l 17321:4-1228, 123321:5-100221:6-27421:8-1020, 1170, 123521:18-21-122921:23-122922: l-77922:3-123122:5- 122922:9-44022: 13-27422:18-19-211

Name and Subject Index

Abbott-Smith, G., 238n,567n, 840n, 924n,925n, 939n, 968n, 969n

Abel, 486,513,543Abelard, Peter, l57,785,796,815nAbomination, 575Abortion, 553-56Abraham,69,181,214,291,402,615,623Absence of God, hell as the, 1235Absolute attributes, 266-67,77 1Absolute inerrancy, 222Absolute theism, 416Abstract approach to apparent

discrepancies, 230Accidental occurrences, 396-97,401Accommodated revelation, 223-24Action, sin as external, 577,625Acts of God: as permanent element in

Christianity, 108-09; as modes ofspecial revelation, 18 l-87; connectionbetween the attributes and, 299

Acts on the virgin birth, silence of, 751Adam, 381; headship of, 635-38; meaning

of the term, 476,486; sin of, 427,476-77,631-39,652-53

Adam and Eve, 176,270,373; status of,

474-77; sin of, 429,586,598; effects ofthe sin of, 602,603,613,614,616-17

Adaptability, 1068Addison, James, 1175nAdequacy, 145Administration as a gift of the Spirit,

867-68Administrator of the sacrament, 1009,

1113-14,1124Adoption, 905,961-65Adoptionism, 727,731,738; instant, 755Adult baptism, 1096,1102Affirmation, inerrancy of, 234Age: of creation, 380-82; of man, 484-87Aged, biblical teaching on the, 551-52Age-day theory, 381,382Agitation, 575-76Alexander, 991,995Alford, Henry, 1210Alienation, 1005All-inclusiveness: of God’s plan, 348-49,

353; of creation, 370-7 1,376Allis, Oswald T., 82n, 615n, 979Alston, William P., 18nAlthaus, Paul, 670,672,691,693

1271

I272

Altizer, Thomas J. J., 114, l16,309,678n,901

American Council of Christian Churches,1140-41

Ames, Edward Scribner, 3 10Amillennialism, 1205,1210,1212-15,

1216-17Anabaptists, 1176Analogia fidei, 70Analogical nature of special revelation,

179-81Analogies elucidating the Trinity, 338-41Analytical philosophy, 27,48-50,56,133Ananias and Sapphira, 991Anderson, Bernhard, 108nAnderson, Marvin W., 208n“Angel of the Lord,” 443Angels, 106,433-51,649,774, 1042,

1202-03,1227; activities of, 444;appearance of, 440; capacities of,440-41;evil,429,437,443,445-51;existence of, 435-36; guardian, 435,445; knowledge of, 441; nature of,438-49; numbers of, 439-40;organization of, 44 l-42; origin of, 438;power of, 441; status of, 439

Anger of God, 604-05,809- 11,8 17- 18Anglican church, 1070Anglican view of 1 Peter 3: 18-19,775Anhypostatic Christology, 732Animal, man as an, 464,466,470,535Animal nature as source of sin, 581-85,

599Annihilationism, 1237-38“Anonymous Christians,” 903Anselm, 159-60,287n, 772n, 785,790,

796-99,912Anthropic nature of special revelation,

90, 178-79Anthropological argument, 159Anthropomorphisms, 268,279Anthropopathisms, 279AnthrGpotokos, 727Antichrist, 1192Antinomianism, 789,791Anxiety of finiteness, 585-88,599Apocrypha, 118 1‘Anoxix)lrrqq, 1189,1191-92Apokutu.\tusis, 10 15Apollinarianism, 714-16.738,755Apollinarius, 521,714-l 5Apologetics, 257Apostasy, 989-96

Name and Subject Index

A posteriori statements. See Syntheticstatements

Apostles, 1073Apostles’ Creed, 747,773Apostolicity as a mark of the church, 1045Apostolic succession, 1045,1071,1073,

1074Apothegm stories, 86Appeasement. See PropitiationApplicability, 144-45Approximations, 236A priori statements. See Mathematical-

type statementsArchaizing, danger of, 22Archangels, 438,441Archer, Gleason L., Jr., 82nArianism, 335,695-98,738Ariel, 543nAristotle, 41,60,374n, 528,628,713,1116Arius, 27,850Arminianism, 354-56,360,424,61 In,

633-34,635,639,826,829,835,918-21,925,927,928,932,971,989-92,995,1016

Arminius, James, 633-34,914,918Arndt, William E, 998nAscension, 777-79Asceticism, 376Assent, faith as, 191,193-94Assertion, inerrancy of, 234Assertiveness as source of sin, excessive,

594Assumption of Moses, 2 14,234Athanasius, 334n, 335,695n, 696n, 714,

795,850-5 1Athenagoras, 848Atonement, 7 1,76n, 12 1,298; efficacy of

the, 835; extent of the, 825-41; limited,914,918,1016; basic meaning of the,811-15; necessity of the, 816; particular,826-29,833-35; and physical sickness,836-4 1; significance of the, 78 l-83;substitutionary, 958; theories of the,783-800; universal, 829-35,918,1016,1021

Attributes during the incarnation,Christ’s divine, 770-72

Attributes of God, 182-83,263-300,302,353; nature of, 265-66; classificationsof, 266-67; best mode of investigatingthe, 299-300

Augustine, 33,34n, 4 1,60, 127,225-26,253-55,339-40,414,434,578,612n,

Name and Subject Index

613n, 633,636,793,795,796,797,798,828,848,908-11,915,94ln, 1043,1150,1170n, 1181,1206-07,1209,1212

Augustinian theodicy, 422Aulen, Gustaf, 76n, 77,792,796Authentic existence, 896-98Authenticity, 94,97,99,103,104Authoritarianism, 243Authoritativeness, 214,217,243,258-59Authority: church government and, 1069;

Jesus’ pre-Easter claim to, 669-70,692;judicial, 257,258; legislative, 257,258;objective and subjective componentsof, 251-53,257; rejection of, 619;religious, 244-46; of Scripture, 241-59,853; of theological statements, 79-80;and tradition, 258

Autonomy in the congregational form ofchurch government, 1078-80

Averroists, 40Axhead, floating, 407-08Ayer, A. J., 49,133,532,535Azusa Street meetings, 856

Baal, 274“Babylonian captivity,” 1114Backsliding, 995Badham, Paul, 1199nBadness, 576,606Baillie, Donald, 306n, 716,732n, 733-34Baillie, John, 58, 184n, 191n, 511, 1233Bajema, Clifford E., 553nBalance, theologians of, 591Bangs, Carl, 634nBaptism, 118,121-22,633,1008,

1089-l 105; adult, 1096,1102;believers’, 1096-97,1102-04; of the HolySpirit, 853,855,877,879-80; infant,1009,1091-92,1093-95,1100,1102-04;of Jesus, 330,335,694,731,861,870;Lutheran conception of, 1090-93,1097-l 100,1104; meaning of,1097-l 101; mode of, 1093,1095,1097,1104-05; Reformed and Presbyterianconception of, 1093-95,1100,1104;Roman Catholic conception of,1090-92, 1097-l 100,1104; as means ofsaving grace, 1090-93,1097-l 100,1104;as a sign and seal of the covenant,1093-95, 1100, 1104; subjects of,1091-92, 1093-95, 1096-97, 1102-04; as atoken of salvation, 1096-97, 110 1,1104-05

1273

Baptism and Confirmation Today, 1102Baptists, 1078, 1097paJctl<o, 1093,1104-05Bara’, 368-69Barbour, R. S., 98,100nBarnabas, 169,212Barr, James, 24,67,188-89,275n, 527-28,

701,702Barrett, C. K., 807Barth, Karl, 27,32,35,46-47,60,62,66,

77,163-69,170,171,184n, 185n, 193,195-96,228,310,314-15,329n,404n,405,433-34,435n, 446-47,474-75,504-08,511,545,593,665,666,716-17,718,732n, 737n, 756n, 870n, 903-04,921-24,1017n, 1026,1056n, 1101,1105,1151n, 1208n

Bartlett, Frederic, 92Basil, 335-36,848n, 851Bass, Clarence B., 1083n, 1162nBates, Ernest S., 421n, 1168nBavinck, Herman, 391nBeardslee, William A., 82nBeasley-Murray, George, 1100,1102-03,

1104-05,121oBeatific vision of God, 1228Becker, Ulrich, 106 1 nBeckwith, Clarence A., 771nBeegle, Dewey, 208,2 l4,227n, 232,233,

240nBeelzebub, 184,187,448“Beginning,” meaning of, 473-74Behavioral sciences, 72,378Behavior as the essence of religion, 112Behaviorism, 138,464,489,532-33,535Being, God as ground of, 307-09Belgic Confession, 1093Belief: as the essence of religion, 18;

importance of correct, 28-29; asprecursor of trust, 193-94; and baptism,110 1. See also Faith

Believers’ baptism, 1096-97, 1102-04Bellow, Saul, 1065Benevolence of God, 292-94Bergson, Henri, 367,536Berkhof, Hendrikus, 648,649n 650,652Berkhof, Louis, 25n, 65,266n, 267n. 284,

299n, 346,52ln, 522n, 61 ln,612,628n,635n, 742n, 826n, 827-28,834,97 In,988,1036n, 1042n, 1048,1076n, 1078n,1093n,1094n,1095n,1113n,1119,1120n,1169n,1173,1190,1195n,~202~1226n

1274

Bcrkouwer, G. C., 62,389n, 392n, 393n,404n, 508n, 726n, 762-63,994n

Bernhardt, Karl-Heinz, 368Bethune-Baker, J. F., 694n, 7 13n, 7 14n,

715n,726n,729nBeyondness, dimensional, 316Beza, Theodore, 9 13Bible. See Scripture; Special revelationBible Presbyterians, 1140-41Biblical definition of the church, 1030-34Biblical theology, 23-25,63-64,66,108,

109,143,186,525,528-29,701; “pure,”24,70,71

Bicknell, E. J., 710nBingham, Rowland V., 837nBishop, 1070-74,1075,1082,1084Blacks, 542-43Black theology, 893,894Blake, William, 116Blik, 136-37Blindness, spiritual, 170,248,925,942Blizzer, J., 741nBloch,Ernst, 1151,116lBloesch, Donald, 63n, 1013Blood of Christ, 809Body, 520-39 passim; glorification of the,

1000-01; instantaneous reception of theheavenly, 118 l-83; nature of theresurrection, 777; resurrection of the,1175-76, 1181-82,1195,1196-99,123l;spiritual, 1198, 1231

Body, The (Robinson), 525Body of Christ, the church as the,

1036-39,1132Boettner, Loraine,715,826n, 915n, 917,

919,987,1016n, 1175n, 1208n, 1209nBoman, Thorleif, 528Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, 74,115,900,938Bornkamm, Gunther, 96,670,691Bowne, Borden I?, 304n, 305n, 477-78,

741nBradley, Walter L., 381nBread, 1113, 1115, 1125-26Breath of God, 302-03,372Brent, Charles, 1139Bride of Christ, 1132Bright, Bill, 579nBright, John, 976nBrightman, EdgarS.,54-55,41517,421Bromiley, Geoffrey W., 1097n, 113ln,

1132nBrotherhood of creation, 376-77; of man,

489-90

Name and Subject Index

Brothers of Jesus, 749-50Brown, Raymond E., 74ln, 742n, 743-46,

748n, 752n, 870nBruce, A. B., 728nBruce, F. F., 82n, 94,1065nBruner, Frederick Dale, 880nBrunner, Emil, 47,62,163-64,184x-i, 192,

194-95,224n, 474-76,499n, 502-04,.507-08,5 11,593,665,666-67,673,70On,782,94On, 1176n

Buber, Martin, 164Buis, Harry, 91ln, 912nBulman, James M., 1080nBultmann, Rudolf, 47,60_61,62,67,87n,

88,89,94,102,106-07,123,436-37,446,665,666,667,669,676,678,691,708,717-18,773,895-98,939n, 1159-61,1188n

Burial: as mark of man, 484,485,486;baptism as, 1104-05

Burney, C. F., 765Bushnell, Horace, 785-88Buswell, James O., Jr., 1223nBuswell, James O., III, 486n

Cadbury, Henry J., 22n, 24n, 63n, 529,703

Cain, 486,513,543Caird, George B ., 1 OOnCairns, David, 499n, 50ln, 512n, 515,516Calling, effectual, 930-33,946Callistus I, 335Calvin, John, 60,77,167,170-71,207,226,

233n,256,257,434-35,501,516,762,834,853,913,917,993n, 1008,1044,1104,1119-20,1212

Calvinism, 354-62,423,611,634-36,826,829,834,835,914-18,920-21,922,925,927,928,932,971,986-89,991, 1016,1118-19

Camus, Albert, 468,1065Canaan, 542-43Cappadocian theologians, 335-37,341Carnap, Rudolf, 34n’, 49,129n, 13ln, 132Carnell, Edward J., 33n, 62,155,193,194,

231_32,233,234,416n,417n,482n,742n, 940n, 979n, 1012n

Carpocrates, 748Carroll, Lewis, 32Carter, James E., 1055nCategorical imperative, 159Category transgression, 134, 148,339Causality, method of, 299

Name and Subject Index

Causation: cosmological proof, 158,160-62; forms of, 372

Causes of sin, terms emphasizing, 564-67Cedarleaf, J. Lennart, 552nCelsus, 746,748Central-state materialist theory, 533,535Cerinthus, 748Certainty, need for, 247-48Chafer, Lewis Sperry, 980,1042n, 1046nChalcedon, Council of, 729-30Chambers, Robert, 481nChance, man at the mercy of, 467-68Chance occurrences, 396-97,401Change: as the basic reality, 51-53;

cultural, 64,113; a heaven without,1232

Changelessness of God. See Constancy ofGod

Chaos, creation out of, 370Character of sin, terms emphasizing the,

567-75Charismatic gifts, 877-82Charismatic movement, 244,252,836,

851,856Charismatic phenomena in the life of

Jesus, no report of, 872Charnock, Stephen, 264n, 265nCheap grace, 74,938Cherubim, 440,442Children: status of, 637-39; of God,

961-65,969Childs, Brevard, 24,25,64n, 65,528-29,

701Chiliasm, 1209Choice: as essence of man, 468-69; of

Adam’s act, 638-39Christ: the church as the body of, 1036-39,

1132; deity of, 324-26,337,668,669,671,673,683-706,714,716,717,723-38,740,753,75.5,770-72,794,804; doctrineof, and the doctrine of atonement,782-83; event, 109; exaltation of, 768,776-79; of faith, 662-75 passim; afterthe flesh, 667; in the flesh, 667;functions of, 762-69; historic, 665;humiliation of, 769-76; imputation ofthe righteousness of, 635,638-39,8 18-19; likeness to, 970; man as clue tothe human nature of, 456-57; and thepowers, 651-52; preexistence of, 685-86,690,753,764; presence of, in the Lord’sSupper, 1112-13, 1119, 1120, 1121-23;reconciling role of, 768-69 (set also

1275

Atonement); relationship between theSpirit and, 952; relationship betweenstudy of the person and work of, 675-77,699-700,702-03,762; revelatory role of,763-67; rule of, 767-68; union with, 647,818-19,948-54,958-59,960,974-75,988, 1037,1100-01. See also Jesus

Christenson, Laurence, 878nChristian life, 974-83Christian Science, 420-2 1,1168Christology: from above, 66567,668,

671-72,673; anhypostatic, 732; frombelow, 667-7 1,672,673,69 1;functional, 698-703; and history,662-75

Chronology, problems with, 214,229,234Church: as authority, 245,246; biblical

images of the, 1034-41; character of the,1067-68; definition of the, 1026-34,1143; functions of the, 1051-59; time ofthe inception of the, 1044, 1048;invisible and visible, 1043-48,1083,1135; and Israel, 1042-43, 1046,1048-49,1163-64, 1211,1219,1224; andthe kingdom, 104 l-42,1043; marks ofthe, 1034,1045,1046-47; membership,903,1047-48; as permanant element inChristianity, 108; role of the, 1051-68;and the sacraments, 1010; and state,1068; unity of the, 1038,1040,1129-46;universal nature of the, 1034,1038

Church of Christ Uniting, 1136Circular reasoning: regarding the Sitz im

Leben, 102-03; regarding inspiration,201

Circumcision, 1036; of the heart, 976,981,1036, 1100; baptism as the substitutefor, 1094-95, 1100, 1104

Clark, Gordon Haddon, 144,417-19,422Clarke, William Newton, 522-23, 524,

1188Classis, 1076Clayton, G. H., 1123nCleage, Albert, 591Clement of Alexandria, 521, 1209Clement of Rome, 849Clowney, Edmund, 1055nCobb, John B., Jr., 51,279n, 280n, 370Coelestius, 633Coenen, Lothar, 924n, 103ln, 1032, 1033Cognitively meaningful propositions,

128, 135, 137, 140, 141, 146, 149,228Coherence, 144

1276

“Coinherence,” 335Cole, George L., 837nCollective sin. See Social dimension of sinCommemoration, the Lord’s Supper as a,

1120, 1122-23Commercial theory. See Satisfaction

theory of the atonementCommitment, theological language as a

means to discernment and, 146-49Commoner, Barry, 362nCommunicable attributes of God, 266,

514Communication of theology, 1246Communism, 363,466, 1151Comparative-religions criticism, 84Comparison, technique of significant, 134Compassion of God. See Mercy of GodCompatibilistic freedom, 357n, 424Compensation to the Father, the

atonement as, 796-99Competition, 618-19Competitiveness as source of sin, 593-95,

599Complexity of Jesus, 738Conciliar unity, 1136Conclusions, inductive, 80Concursive inspiration, 187Conditional immortality, 613, 1237Conditional imputation of guilt, 639Conditional unity, 536-39Cone, James H., 590-92, b93n, 894Confirmation, 1009Congar, Yves, 903Congregational Church, 1136Congregational form of church

government, 1078-82, 1084, 1086Congruism, 359,423Conscience, 584, 585; insensitivity to, 617Conscious, 1126Consequences of sin, terms emphasizing

the, 575-77Consequentialist view of ethics, 427Consequent nature, 280Conservative Baptist Association, 979Consistency, 143-44Consistory, 1076Constancy: across cultures as criterion of

permanence, 12 1; of God, 274, 278-8 1,299

Constantine the Great, 82Constantinople, Council of, 335, 716Consubstantiation, I I17Consultation on Church Union, 1136

Name and Subject Index

Contact with unbeliever, point of, 173,312

Contemporization, 21-22, 64, 70, 73-77,100, 105-25

Contextualization, 75-76, 78, 1246Contingent immortality, 117 1Continuous creation, 39 l-92, 393Conversion, 600,872,932-42,946; theory

of universal, 1015-16Conviction, 872,94 1Conzelmann, Hans, 96,670Cook, Thomas C., Jr., 553nCopernicus, 106Copies of the Bible, inerrancy and, 239-40Coppieters, Honore, 2 11 nCorporate persontility, biblical concept

of, 652-55Correlation, method of, 73, 308,458-59Corruption, 904Cosmic eschatology, 997, 1155, 1167,

1186-1204, 1225Cosmological proof (causation), 158,

160-62Cottrell, Jack, 555-56Covenant, 976, 1036; baptism as a sign

and seal of the, 1093-95, 1100, 1104Covenant College and Seminary, 1141Creation,43,139,189,303,365-86; ageof,

380-82; continuous, 391-92, 393;development within, 382-84, 385;elements of the doctrine of, 367-73;God’s later work of, 373-74;implications of, 385-86; out of nothing,367-70; renewal of, 1001; and science,378-84, 386; the Spirit and, 866;theological meaning of, 374-78;theological meaning of human, 487-93;uniqueness of God’s work of, 374,384-85

Creationism: fiat, 479-80; progressive,481-84

Creationist view of the origin of the soul,632,635

Creative evolution (Bergson), 367, 536Cressy, Martin H., 1134nCriteria: for evaluating propositions, 58;

internal and external, 143-45Criticism, 58, 81-104, 185-86Crucifixion, 398,400Cullmann, Oscar, 77,27Sn, 699-703, 1100,

1103Cultural mandate, 5 10Cultural setting, inerrancy in context of,

235-36

Name and Subject Index

Culture on theological thinking, influenceof, 26

Cur Deus homo? (Anselm), 797Cyclical view of history, 27, 362Cyril of Alexandria, 727-28

Dahl, M. E., 1199nDana, H. E., 993, 1096nDanell, G. A., 748nDaniel, 389Darby, John Nelson, 1162Darwin, Charles, l62,479n, 582, 1244Darwinism, 363. See also EvolutionDavid, 202, 398,430-31,610, 615, 617Davidson, A. B., 866nDavies, W. D., 24n, 223, 1109, 1181-83Day of the Lord, 1159Deacon, 1082Death, 393,476-77,491, 530-31, 533-34,

538, 611-15, 624-25, 636-37, 652-53,795-96,960-61,1168-74,1184; denial of,420-2 1, 616; effects of, 1172-74; asconquered enemy, 1172-73, 1184; ofinfants, 637-39; of Jesus, 772-73 (seealso Atonement); nature of, 1169-70;reality of, 1168-69; second, 534, 614

Death of God theology, 61, 74, 114-16,309-10, 678, 901

Deception, 448; of Satan, 793-95Decision to ratify Adam’s sin, 638-39Decretive will, 417-19Deductive approach, 204Degrees: of church membership, 903; in

heaven, 1233-34; in hell, 1240; ofordination, 1070

Deism, 31,41, 391,392Deissmann, Adolf, 950nDeistic evolution, 480-81Deity of Jesus, 324-26,337,668,669,671,

673,683-706,714,716,717,723-38,740,753, 755, 770-72, 794, 804

Delitzsch, Franz, 166n, 520n, 521n, 556Democracy in the congregational form of

church government, 1078, 1080, 1084Demodernized eschatology, 1157-58Demon possession, 449-50Demons, 106, 107, 445-51; origin of,

447-48; destiny of, 450-51. See alsoAngels, evil

Demythologization, 60, 89, 106-07,436-37, 446, 665, 669, 678, 895, 898,1159-60, 1235

Denial of sin, 616-17

Denotata, 144Dependability of God, 279, 299Depravity, total, 256, 539, 627-31

803, 822, 905,914-15, 927, 932Descartes, RenC, 159Descent into Hades, 773-76Designata, 144Desires as potential source of sin,

legitimate, 596-98

656,

Detail: absence of unnecessary, 89, 176;degree of, 2 15- 17

Determinism, 46Deterrence, punishment as, 609, 791Development: within creation, 382-84,

385; in heaven, no need for, 1232-33Dewey, John, 42,43-44DeWolf, L. Harold, 523-24, 742n, 1188nDiachronic approach to historical

theology, 25Dialectical materialism, 363, 466, 115 1,

1243Dibelius, Martin, 86, 88nDichotomism, 521-24, 530-36Dictation, 217-19; theory, 207Didactic material, 204, 208-09, 2 14- 15,

233Didactic passages, 68Diem, Hermann, 670Dimensional beyondness, 3 16Dionysius of Alexandria, 1209Dionysius the Areopagite, 435Dioscorus, 728Dipolar theism, 280Direction of movement in salvation,

890-9 1Discernment, theological language as a

means to, 146-49Disciples of Christ, 1139Discipline, 965, 1055, 1082; punishment

as, 609-10Discrepancies, apparent, 69, 222, 229-31Disease, 436; Christian Science view of,

420-2 1Disembodied existence, 525, 530-36,

1184, 1214-15. See also Intermediatestate

Disfavor, divine, 602-05Disobedience, 572-73Dispensationalism, 1042, 1046, 1152,

1153, 1162-64, 1191, 1209, 1211, 1219Displacement of God (essence of sin), 580Disposition of the recipient of the

sacrament, 1009, 1010

1277

1278_

Dissimilarity, 103Distance of God. See TranscendenceDistinction between God and man,

qualitative, 315-16Distinctiveness, 103Dittemore, John V., 421n, 1168nDivine racism, 542Divine speech as special revelation,

187-90Divinity of man (liberalism), 305Docetism, 29,376, 712-14, 738Doctrine: as the essence of religion, 18,

112; identifying the essence of a, 71; asa mark of the church, correct, 1047

Doctrines: stratification of, 78-79; aspermanent element in Christianity,110-11

Documentary hypothesis, 83Dodd, C. H., 190, 810-11, 1017n, 1105,

1158-59Dominion, exercise of, 5 16, 517; viewed

as the image of God, 508-10, 511-12,513, 514

Domino theory, 227“Donation of Constantine,” 82Donlon, S. E., 24%Doomsday philosophies, 362Doty, William G., 82nDouble predestination, 911,913,917,923Dowey, Edward A., Jr., 226nDread, 586-87Dreams, 179, 187Dualism, 414, 416, 446; Christian, 54,

423; rejection of, 371,374, 37.5. See alsoDichotomism

Duns Scotus, 912“Dust,” 481, 482, 483Dynamic definition of the church,

1028-30Dynamic incarnation, 733-34Dynamic monarchianism, 333-34Dynamic theory, 207Dyson, W. H., 1231n“Dysteleological” elements in the

universe, 162-63

Eastwood, Cyril, 1085nEating in heaven, the question of, 1232Ebionism, 694, 713, 738,748Ecclesiological issue (evangelicals and

ecumenism), 1143-44Eclecticism, 65Economic being, man as an, 466-67

Name and Subject Index

Economic struggle as source of sin,590-93, 599

Economic view of the Trinity, 332-33Ecumenical Missionary Conference, 1138Ecumenical movement, 1027, 1069,

1137-42; evangelicals and the, 1142-45‘Edah, 1031-32Eddy, Mary Baker, 420-2 1, 1168Eddy, Richard, 1017nEdersheim, Alfred, 446nEdification, 1037-38, 1054-56, 1057Edinburgh (1910 conference), 1138, 1146Education: as the cure for sin, 595,599; as

a function of the church, 1055-56Edwards, David L., 1229nEffectual calling, 930-33, 946Efficaciousness of God’s plan, 348,353,

354Efficiency, 1134Egoism as the source of sin, excessive, 594Ehrlich, Paul R., 362nEichrodt, Walter, 269n, 328,496n, SlOn,

512,939nEinstein, Albert, 538‘Exxhnala, 1031-33,1048Elan vital, 536Elder, 1074-78, 1082, 1084; ruling, 1077;

teaching, 1076, 1077Elderly, biblical teaching on the, 551-52Eldredge, Laurence, 24nElect, 825-35 passim; during the

tribulation, 1219, 1220-21, 1224Election, 346,835,908,920,924,987; and

atonement, 828-29,834; of Jesus Christ,922-23; unconditional, 9 16- 17, 920-2 1;universal, 923-24

Elemental spirits, 645, 649Elert, Werner, 669-70, 691Elijah, 274, 395Elizabeth, 554Elliott, Harrison Sacket, 593-95, 599‘Elohim, 328Emanant attributes, 266Emanation, 377Eminence, method of, 299Emotions of Jesus, 708-09Emotive language, 49, 13 l-32Empathize, inability to, 619Empirical definition of the church,

1028-30Empirical statements. See Synthetic

statementsEmpowering work of the Spirit, 873-74

Name and Subject Index

Encounter with man, God’s special, 114,184-85, 192, 194, 195-96, 224, 244,253

English, E. Schuyler, 12 19nEnlightenment. See IlluminationEnmity of unbelievers toward God, 603,

604,644,646Enoch, Book of, 214,234Enslavement, 61.5-16Ephesus, Council of, 727,728,911‘Ex@dcveta, 1189,1191-92Episcopal form of church government,

1070-74, 1081, 1084, 1086Epistemological importance of inerrancy,

227-29Equality with God, Jesus’, 325Equivocal language, 179Erasmus, 913Erickson, Millard J., 27n, 172n, 724n,

943n, 1224n, 1246nErigena, Johannes Scotus, 911Error, 710-I 1; sin as, 565-67Error in Scripture: possibility of, 205;

definition of, 239. See also InerrancyEschatological verification, 140-41Eschatology, 997, 1149-1241;

classification of, 1153-55; cosmic, 997,1155, 1167, 1186-1204, 1225;demodernized, 1157-58;existentialized, 1159-61; individual,997, 1155, 1167-84, 1194, 1225; inliberation theology, 1004; modernized,1156-57; politicized, 1161-62; realized,1158-59; status of, 1149-53;systematized, 1162-64

“Eschato’mania,” 1152“Eschatophobia,” 1152-53Essence: of the doctrine, 71, 119, 120-25,

259; of God, 265-66Essential experience as criterion of

permanence, link with, 123Estep, William, 1142-43, 1145Estrangement, 1005; existential, 588-90,

599Eternal death, 614-15, 960, 1170, 1171,

1174, 1239Eternal dimension of man, 471Eternal life, 989Eternity (attribute of God), 267,271,318,

337-38Ethical teaching: without doctrine, 111;

as offense to modern man, 117Ethic as permanent element in

Christianity, a particular, 112

I279

Ethics, religion as a matter of, 19‘Ewayy&ov, 1061-62Eucharist, 1009. See also Lord’s SupperEusebius of Caesarea, 333n, 334n, 850Eusebius of Dorylaeum, 727Eutychianism, 728-30, 738Evangelical Alliance, 1138Evangelical and Reformed Church, 1136Evangelical concepts: of salvation, 889,

890,904-1022; of the means ofsalvation, 1011-15

Evangelical Lutherans in Mission, 1137Evangelicals, 656; and ecumenism,

1142-45; growth among, 1066-67; andsocial concern, 1059

Evangelical United Brethren, 1136Evangelism: and the Calvinist doctrine of

predestination, 361, 921, 927; as afunction of the church, 1052-54, 1057;as the purpose of ecumenism, 1137-38,1144, 1146

Evans, Robert E, 632nEve, 428-29. See also Adam and EveEvidence and faith, 941Evil, 576; problem of, 115, 162-63, 289,

375-76, 41 l-32; denial of, 420-21; asnecessary accompaniment of thecreation of man, 423-25; reevaluationof what constitutes good and, 425-27; ingeneral as result of sin in general,427-29; as result of specific sins, 430-3 1;God as victim of, 432; heaven as theremoval of, 1228

Evolution, 162, 304-05, 367, 382-84,478-84, 581-85, 599, 899; creative, 367,536

Ewald, George, 167Exaltation of Christ, 768, 776-79, 1190Example, the atonement as, 783-85, 791,

8 19-20Ex cathedra, 1072Excommunication, 1038, 1055Exegesis, 66-69Existence, God as basis of, 307-09Existence of God, 271-72; establishing

the, 30-33, 41, 158-63, 171Existential estrangement, 588-90, 599Existentialism, 45-48, 55,74, 363,467-68,

508, 511, 1168-69Existentialized eschatology, 1159-61

Existential theology, 895-98Ex nihilo creation, 367-70Exodus, 108-09

1280_

Ex opere operato, 1009, 1010, 1090Expedient, truth defined as the, 44Experience: relationship between truth

and, 29; as the permanent element inChristianity, 109-10; as criterion ofpermanence, link with essential, 123

Expiation, 810-l 1Explicit opportunity, theory of universal,

1016-17Expressive language, 49, 131-32Extent of salvation, 891, 1015-22Extrabiblical sources of illumination,

72-73Extreme unction, 1009Eyewitnesses, 92, 93, 94Ezorsky, Gertrude, 43n

Fairbairn, Patrick, 442nFaith, 68-69, 172-73, 872, 890, 934,

938-42, 1010-l 1; as assent and trust,191, 193-94; baptism as an act of, 1101;and evidence, 941; in existentialtheology, 897-98; and healing, 405,838-39; and history, 662-75, 717-18;implicit, 1092, 1100; and reason,103-04, 673-74, 941; and revelation,940; salvation of Old Testamentbelievers by, 976, 980; the connectionbetween the accounts incorporated inScripture and, 89-90; spectacles of, 171,256; vicarious, 1092, 1100; and works,959-60, 1012-15

Faith and Order, 1139Faithfulness, 267, 291-92, 296-97;

exhortations to, 990Faith Theological Seminary, 1140, 1141Fall of man, 170, 176, 427-28, 582, 585,

586, 588, 612-13, 650, 655, 836, 837;coincident with creation (Tillich),589-90

Family influences fostering evil, 654Farr, E K., 486nFarrer, A. M., 1073nFarrer, Austin, 1232nFather: deity of the, 324, 337; as Creator,

366, 371-73Fathers, church, 258Fcdcral headship, 635, 637Feeling: as the essencca of religion, 19,

855; language expressing, 13 l-32Feigl, Herbert, 49Feinberg, Charles L., 1218nFeinberg, John, 412-13, 422,424n, 427

Name and Subject Index

Feinberg, Paul D., lOln, 325nFeine, P., 879nFellowship: of believers, 1037-38, 1055,

1135; with God as element of essentialhumanity, 514,515-16; in heaven, 1231

Feminine imagery depicting God, 547Ferguson, John, 632n, 633nFerrC, Frederick,48n, 50n, 132n, 133,134,

141-46, 148, 149FerrC, Nels, 77,297n, 608n, 719n, 1018-20,

1021,1235nFetus, status of the, 553-56Feuerbach, Ludwig, 194Fiat creationism, 479-80Fichte, Johann, 42nFideism, 146,228“Filioque” controversy, 852F&on, Floyd V., 1203nFinal cause, explanations in terms of, 138Final judgment, 1000, 1200-04, 1220,

1235-36; subjects of the, 1202-03Final position within progressive

revelation as criterion of permanence,123-24

Final states, 1225-41Finiteness: of man, 247, 377, 491-93;

anxiety of, 585-88, 599Finitism, 414-17,Fink, Eugen, 2 18Finnegan, Ruth, 92nFinney, Charles G., 972n, 973nFish, miraculous catch of, 407,408Fiske, John, 305nFlesh: 525-29,579,598,604,708,712,714,

808; life in the, 875; the new birth asdeath to the, 944; works of the, 578,627

Fletcher, Joseph, 298, 465Flew, Antony, 131, 136, 357n, 424, 530Flexibility, 1068Flight from reality, 616Flood, 189; theory, 380-81, 382Florence, Council of, 1180Florovsky, Georges, 1026Focus, 215-16Foerster, Werner, 369Footwashing, 118, 122Forbearance of God. See Persistence of

GodForce, 242-43Foreknowledge, 355-56,360,912,920,926Forensic righteousness, 955-59Foreordination, 346, 360, 908, 920, 926.

See ulso Calvinism

Name aud Subject Index

Forgiveness, 296-97, 963; of‘ sins (.lcsus

claim), 684-85Formal aspect of the image of God

(Brunner), 502-04, 5 11Form and matter, 525, 528Form criticism, 83, 84-95, 97, 99Formgeschichte, 85Form of expression (in contrast to essence

of truth), 119, 120, 121, 124, 259“Form” of God, 689-90, 734-35Forms. See Ideas, PlatonicFosdick, Harry Emerson, 109-10, 111,

123, 524,74On, 1175, 1176nFowler, James, 591France, R. T., 82n, 101Frankl, Viktor, 115 1, 1152nFreedom: tenet of existentialism, 46; of

God, 278,351-52, 359; human, 355,357-61, 397-98, 429, 468-69, 921, 927,991; moral, limited by social realities,653-54; tension between finitude and,585-87, 599

Freewill,415-16,423-24,632-33,909-10,912,917

Freud, Sigmund, 34,464-65, 1126Friedman, Milton and Rose, 469nFriedrich, Gerhard, 106 1,1062,1063Friend, Jesus as, 292-93Friendship with God, 964,975Fruit of the Spirit, 875,882,945,970,982,

996,1039Fuller, Daniel, 223n, 255-56,777nFuller, Reginald, 103, 108n, 325n, 690,

703nFull inerrancy, 222,234Functional analysis, 49-50,133-35Functional Christology, 698-703Functionalism, 56Functional subordination, 338Functional view of the image of God,

508-10,511-12,513,514Functions of Christ, 762-69Fundamentalism, 65,251,304,1142Futurism, 115 1Futuristic view of eschatology, 1 154

Gabler, Johann Philipp, 24,70,71Gabriel, 44 1,444Gadamer, Hans-Georg, 68Gacbelein, A. C., 837nGandhi, Mahatma, 657Gap theory, 380,382Gardc>ner, parable ot’thtt, 130-3 I, 136, 139

1281

Gaussen, Louis, 230-3 1,233,238Geden, A. S., 840nGedney, Edwin K., 381nGee, Donald, 877nGehenna, 1183Geisler, Norman, 3 In, 422Geldenhuys, Johannes Norval, 1Ol4nGenealogies, 124,200General Assembly (Presbyterian), 1076General Association of Regular Baptists,

979General revelation, 72-73,80, 153-74,

176-77,186,257,305, 1016; loci of,154-55; reality and efficacy of, 156-7 1;and human responsibility, 171-73;implications of, 173-74

Gentiles, ministry to, 543-45Genuineness of God, 289-90Geology, 380“Germ theory” of sin, 429Geschichte, 99, 104,123,665,669,717,

718Gess, Wolfgang Friedrich, 770nGibbon, Edward, 703nGibson, Edgar C. S., 775nGifts of the Spirit, 248,875-82,1037,

1041,1054-55,1056Gilkey, Langdon, 74,109,180,186,375n,

376n, 378-79,47On, 629-30,653n, 899n,1057n

Gill, Jerry H., 58n, 135Gingrich, E Wilbur, 649n, 998nGlorification, 905,985,997-1002Glory of God, 78,373,998,1229; as the

supreme objective, 288,300,352Glory of heaven, 1229Glossolalia, 855-56,877-82, 1054Gnosticism, 1197Gnostics, Valentinian, 753nGod: acts of, as permanent element in

Christianity, 108-09; acts of, as modesof special revelation, 18 l-87; anger of,604-05,809-l 1,817-18; attributes of,182-83,263-300,302,353; as authority,244; beatific vision of, 1228;benevolence of, 292-94; breath of,302-03,374; constancy of, 274,278-g 1,299; dependability of, 279,299;displacement of (essence of sin), 580;doctrine of, and the doctrine of theatonement, 782,802; doctrine of, andthe doctrine of sin, 562; essence of,265-66; ctcrnity of, 267,271,318,

1282

337-38; existence of, 30-33,4 1,158-63,171,271-72;faithfulnessof,267,291-92,296-97; feminine imagery applied to,547; freedom of, 278,351-52,359;genuineness of, 289-90; glory of, 78,288,300,352,373; goodness of, 78,267,277,283-300,401-02,412,414,417-19;grace of, 294-95; greatness of, 78,173,267-81; as ground of being, 307-09,588;heaven as the presence of, 1228; hell asthe absence of, 1235; holiness of, 267,284-86,318,802,816,818,821; imageof, 72,173,294,329; immanence of,116,273,301-13,316,318-19,393;478,678,680,681,741; immensity of, 273;“inabilities” of, 277-78;incomprehensibility of, 180,266,338;independence of, 27 l-72,303; infinityof, 267,272-78; integrity of, 289-92;justice of, 288-89,295,297-98;knowledge of, 180,181,267,275-76,280; lifeof,271-72,289; loveof, 180,266,267,280,292-98,347,390,767,817-18,821,832; magnificence of, 78;man as clue to the nature of, 456; mercyof, 266,267,295-96; misconceptionsconcerning, 263-64; name of, 269;omnipotence of, 266,276-78,318,400,412,413-17; omnipresence of, 266,267,273,318; omniscience of, 275-76,280,290; oneness of, 323-24,337,341;persistence of, 296-97; personal natureof, 139-40,177-78,268-71,310,347;power of, 267,276-78,347; purity of,284-89; righteousness of, 286-88; lack ofself-centeredness in, 287-88,293-94;sin’s effects on man’s relationship with,602-15; and space, 268,273-74,313-14;spirituality of, 266,267-68,273; asstarting point of theology, 30-33; andtime, 274-75; transcendence of, 116,120,178,247,273,275,280,301-02,303,307,310,312-19,478,695,713,722,74 1; uniqueness of, 284,323-24;unity of, 323-24,337,341; theUnknown, 314; veracityof,290-91; asvictim of evil, 432; wisdom of, 275-76,277

“God in Revolution” (Moltmann), 1006Gogartcn, Friedrich, 670Golden Rule, 111Gonzalez, Justo and Catherine, 590n, 592,

893,894n, 895

Name and Subject Index

Good: definition of, 402; reevaluation ofwhat constitutes evil and, 425-27

Goodall, Jane, 485Goodall, Norman, 1139n, 1140nGoodness: of God, 78,267,277,283-300,

401-02,412,414,417-19; of creation,375-76

Good news. See GospelGoodspeed, Edgar, 94Goodwin, D. W., 654nGood works, 960,1012-15Gordon, Cyrus, 82nGore, Charles, 733n, 771nGospel: as the heart of the church’s

ministry, 1059-67; defense of the,1064-65; spread of the, as the majortenet of postmillennialism, 1207

Gosse, Philip H., 381nGottschalk, 911Government: church, 1069-87;

providence as, 388,389n, 394-405Governmental theory of the atonement,

788-92,820-21Govett, Robert, 1223nGrace, 633,928; cheap, 74,938;

continuance of the Christian life by,977; as that which unites man withGod, 164; of God, 294-95; irresistible,914; Judaism’s emphasis on works and,977; and nature, 902; in the OldTestament, 982; paradox of, 733-34;prevenient, 634,914,920,925,931;salvation by, 959-60, 1181; sanctifying,1044

Graham, Billy, 437nGrant, Robert, 92Gratsch, Edward J., 1073nGray, Robert M., 552nGreat Commission, 12 1,273,329,

1052-54,1055Greatness of God, 78,173,267-81Great tribulation, 1190-92,1193,1206,

1211-12;viewsofthe, 1217-24Greek and Hebrew mentalities, 525-29,

699,701Green, Michael, 1052nGreenslade, S. L., 1074nGregory of Nazianzus, 335,434,795,851Gregory of Nyssa, 335,336,521,793,

794-95Gregory the Great, 795,796Grensted, L. W., 789n, 796n, 797nCrier, W. J., 1213n

Name and Subject Index

Griffin, David Ray, 51 n, 279n, 280n, 370Gromacki, Robert Glenn, 878nGrotius, Hugo, 789-92Ground of being, 307-09Group of believers, the Gospels as

products of the, 90Group sin. See Social dimension of sinGrowth in heaven, no need for, 1232-33Guardian angels, 435,445Guilt, 563,576-77,585,605-07,634,896,

904,954; imputation of Adam’s, 635,638-39,915

Gundry, Robert, 102n, 1221n, 1222n,1223n

Gunther, Walther, 568n, 570nGunton, Colin, 303nGutbrod, W., 976nGuthrie, Donald, 1109n, 1210nGutierrez, Gustavo, 591,657n, 892n,

1004,1006

Habel, Norman C., 82nHades, 1183; descent into, 773-76Haering, Theodore, 1150nHahn, Traugott, 1206nHam, 542-43Hamilton, Floyd, 1213nHamilton, William, 114-l5,116n, 309,

901nHandy, Robert, 1145Hannah, 115Hanson, Stig, 1131n, 1133Hare, R. M., 136Harmonistic approach, 230-3 1,233Harmonization, moderate, 23 1Harnack, Adolf von, 22n, 90,‘111,124,

163,663-64,684n, 685,747,767n, 1156,1157n, 1207n

Harris, C., 1175nHarris, R. Laird, 805n, 1074n, 1077n,

1078n, 1082nHarrison, Everett, 82n, 23 1,232,233,

240nHarrison, Norman B., 1223nHarrison, Roland K., 82nHartshorne, Charles, 5 1,52,53,159,280Hatch, Edwin, 807nHatred of sin, God’s, 602-05Hauck, A., 73 InHawthorne, Gerald, 102nHeadlam, Arthur C., 957n. 958Head of the church, Christ as the, 1037,

1132-33

1283

Headship, Adam’s, 635-38Healing, physical, 836-41Heaven, 1179,1226-34,124l; degrees of

reward in, 1233-34; knowledge in, 1228,1233; life in, 1229-31; nature of,1228-29; perfection in, 1232-33;physical pleasures and, 1228, 1232; as aplace, 123 l-32; remembrance in, 1233;as a state, 1231-32; the term, 1226-27

Hebblethwaite, Brian, 681Hebert,A. G., 810,1070n, 1074nHebrew and Greek mentalities, 525-29,

699,701Hegel, Georg, 41-42,45,159,268,363,

679,1243Heidegger, Martin, 45,46n, 370,469x-t,

895-96, 1160Heilsgeschichte, 108,204,669,699-700,

702Heim, Karl, 391-92,404nHeinecken, Martin, 315,316nHell,432, 1018-19,1178,1234-41; descent

into, 773-76; degrees of punishment in,1240

Helm, Paul, 534-35,1184Helpmeet, 546Hendriksen, William, 1213nHendry, George, 33 1Henley, William Ernest, 469Henry, Carl, 54,62,240,655n, 755n,

1141nHeraclitus, 5 1“Hermeneutical circle,” 1004-05Hermeneutics, 257Herrmann, Wilhelm, 163Herzog, Frederick, 3 17nHewitt, Thomas, 993nHick, John, l41,417n, 422,677n, 680n,

1199nHierarchy, 435Hinduism, 269,362Hippolytus, 332Hirsch, E. D., 235nHiscox, Edward T., 1079n, 1082n, 1096nHistorical authoritativeness, 217,259Historical criticism, 83-84Historical events: revelation as, 63; as

permanent element in Christianity,108-09; as modes of special revelation,181-87,228

Historical references in the Bible, 222-23,227,237

Historical theology, 25-27,71, 118, 125

1284 Name and Subject Index Name and Subject Index 1285

Historical view of eschatology, 1154Historie, 99,104,123,665,717,718History: and Christology, 662-75; cyclical

view of, 27,362; the early church’sinterest in, 91-92; as locus of generalrevelation, 154-55; God’s governanceof, 277,395-96 (see also Providence);identifying, with God’s working, 163,3 10,404; and providence, 388;revelation in, 182-83,189; revelationthrough, 183-86; revelation as, 186-87,692; various understandings of, 362-63

Hitler, Adolf, 44,163,310,1244Hitzig, Ferdinand, 167Hodge, A. A., 208Hodge, Charles, 208,436,742n, 766n,

828-29,915n, 1076n, 1093n, 1095n,1119n, 1120,1208n, 1235n

Hodgson, Leonard, 7 11Hoekema, Anthony, 42 In, 878n 1150n,

1176-77,1213nHoekendijk, 3. C., 1051nHoliness, 967-69; of God, 267,284-86,318Holm, Bernard, 852nHolmes, Arthur, 54,58nHoly orders, 1009Holy Spirit, 245,756,757,845-83;

association of the, with the Father andSon, 859,860-61; and the Christian,970; the church as the temple of the,1039-4 1; and churches withoutgovernmental structure, 1083; andcreation, 371-73; deity of the, 326-27,337,849-51,857-59,862 (see also Three-in-oneness); equality of the, with theFather and Son, 338,859; eternality ofthe, 858; fruit of the, 875,882,945,970,982,996, 1039; gifts of the, 644,836,875-82,1037,1041,1054-55,1056;indwelling of the, 874,1039,1040-41;nature of the, 857-62; omniscience ofthe, 858; personality of the, 859-62;person of the, 845-63; power of the, 858,1039-40; relationship of Christ and the,952; and Scripture, 853,859,867; workof the, 94, 148,199,206-07,211-12,215,218,247-52,255-58,766,779,846,858-59,860,865-83,931,941,945,952,970,1039-41,109l

Homoiolrsios-homootlsios, 697, 703Honesty, 290-91Hook-and-bait imagery, 794-95Hooker, M. D., 103n

Hope, 115 1; of the gospel, 1065-66;theology of, 264,275,316-17,1161-62

Hordern, William, l13,117n, l29,134n,137-40,149,193n, 194n, 239,766n,940n, 1059n

Horne, Charles M., 934n, 963n, lOOOnHoward, Wilbert Francis, 957nHubbard, David, 224nHughes, James A., 1214-15Human action and God’s plan, 353-61,

403Humanism, Christian, 516Humanity: essential, 456,506,514,721,

736; importance of the doctrine of,455-62; of Jesus, 29,190,376,506,698,705-38,752,753,755,770-72,778,804;origin of, 473-93; universality of, 541-58

Human nature, God’s power over, 277Human responsibility, 46,171-73,376,

419Human will and God’s plan, 353,355Hume,David, 161-62,408n,412Humiliation of Christ, 769-76Humility, 122,894Husserl, Edmund, 2 18Hymenaeus, 991,995,1197Hypostases, 335-36,337Hypothetical theory (Heb. 6:4-6), 993-94

Idealism, 54-55; personal, 415Idealist view of eschatology, 1154Ideal language philosophy, 49Ideal-time theory, 381,382Ideas: importance of, 1243-44; Platonic,

41,254,374,375Identity: of man, 471,488,53 1,534; in the

resurrection, personal, 1199,1233Ideological theologians, 591-92Ideologies, evil effects of, 654Idols,268,271,290,323,324,372,378Ignatius, 714,747-48Ignorance, 564-65,566,710-l 1; regarding

the virgin birth, 748-52I-it relationship, 192,196Illness, 836-4 1Illumination, 41, 148,247,249,252-56,

874,931; extrabiblical, 72-73; theory,206

Image: of Christ, 970; of God, 72,173,294,329,47 1,495-5 17,737

ImmanenceofGod, 116,273,301-13,316,318-19,393,478,678,680,681,741,1027-28; biblical basis for, 302-03;

modern movcn~~~nts emphasizing,304-10; implicationsof, 31 l-12

Immanent attributes, 266Immediacy in creation of man,

conservative emphasis on, 477-78Immensity of God, 273Immersion, 1095,1097,1104-05Imminence of the second coming,

1192-94,1219-20,1223Imminent posttribulationism, 1223-24Immortality, 109-10; conditional, 613,

1237; contingent, 1171; of the soul, 524,525,530,537,1175-76

Immutability. See Constancy of GodImpassibility, divine, 7 13,737Imperial authority, 242Impiety, 569-7 1Implications of Scripture, 79-80Imputation, 635,638-39,818-19“Inabilities” of God, 177-78Inability, total, 915,925,933,942Inattention, 567Inauthentic existence, 46,469,896-98,

1168Incarnation, 116,164,179,190-91,376,

432,677-81,706,723-38,742,754-55,769-72,797-99; dynamic, 733-34;continuing, 778

Incommunicable attributes, 266Incomprehensibility of God, 180,266,338Independence: in doing theology, 65-66;

of God, 27 l-72,303 (see alsoTranscendence)

Individual as the unit of morality, 656Individual eschatology, 997, 1155,

1167-84,1194,1225Individualism as source of sin, 593-95,

599Individualistic approach to the church,

1045-46Individuality (tenet of existentialism),

45-46Inductive approach, 204Indwelling of the Spirit, 874,1039,

1040-4 1Inerrancy, 101,22 l-40; various

conceptions of, 222-24; importance of,225-29; and phenomena, 229-33;definition of, 233-38

Infallibility,papal, 1072Infant baptism, 1009, 1091-92, lOY3-95,

1100, 1102-04Infants, status or, 637-39

Inferences drawn by biblical writers, 183Infinite value of the atonement, 822,826Infinity (attribute of God), 267,272-78Influential presence, 1119, 1122Infralapsarianism, 826,918Infusion of love, 852Inheritance, glorification as, 999Iniquity, 572. See also Sin“Inner light,” 1083Insecurity, efforts to overcome, 586Insensitivity, 6 17- 18Inspiration, 94, 187-88,199-220,225,230,

232,848; definition of, 199-200; fact of,200-03; issues in formulating a theoryof, 203-06; theories of, 206-07; methodof formulating a theory of, 207- 10;extent of, 210-12; intensiveness of,212-14; modelof,214-20

Instantaneity in creation of man,conservative emphasis on, 477-78

Instantaneous resurrection, 118 1-83Institution as permanent element in

Christianity, 108Instruction as a function of the church,

1055-56Instrumentalism, 43-44Integrating motif, 77-78Integrity: of God, 289-92; lack of, 572Intellectual structures, evil effects of,

653-54Intention of writer, 234-35Intercessory ministry, Jesus’, 706,769,

827-28,833Intercessory role of the Spirit, 874-75Interconnectedness of believers, 1037Interdependence, 279Intermediate state, 525,527,536-38,

1174-84,12 14- 15. See also Disembodiedexistence

Intermittent nature of inspiration, 211-12International Council of Christian

Churches, 1140International Missionary Council, 1140Interpretation: of Scripture, 68, 70, 71,

257; distinguished from the message,118; as special revelation, 188-90

Interpretics, 143Interpretive motif, central, 77-78Intransitive attributes, 266Intuition theory, 206Inverted theology, 300invisibility of God, 267-68lnvisiblc church, 1043-48, 1083, 1135

1286 Name and Subject IndexName and Subject Index 1287

Irenaean theodicy, 422Irenaeus, 500, 714,747, 793,849, 1209Irrationalism (tenet of existentialism), 45Irreligion, 569-71Irresistible grace, 914Isaac, 69, 181, 291,402Israel: and the church, 1042-43, 1046,

1048-49, 1163-64, 1211, 1219, 1224;God’s faithfulness to, 291,296; literal(national), 1042-43, 1162, 12 11; as thepeople of God, 543, 1035-36;preservation of, 154-55, 181,389;spiritual, 1042-43; unity of OldTestament, 1131

I-Thou relationship, 139-40,192,196,505,507

Jacobs, Paul, 924n, 925n, 926nJames, 745, 1073James, William, 43,44, 55Jaspers, Karl, 45, 1169nJehovah’s Witnesses, 695, 1176, 1189Jenkins, W. S., 543nJepsen, Alfred, 939nJeremias, Joachim, 104,665,765,

1102-03, 1109n, lllOn, 1183Jerusalem, 1053Jesus: as atonement, 298; baptism of, 330,

335,694,731; complexity of, 738; as thecontent of the gospel, 1061-63; andcreation, 371-73; and preservation ofcreation, 388; crucifixion of, 398,400;in the Death of God theology, 309; deityof, 324-26, 337,668,669,671, 673,683-706,714,716,717,723-38,740,753,755, 770-72,794, 804; election of,922-23; emotions of, 708-09; as theestablisher of the Lord’s Supper, 1109;as the first-born of the dead, 1196; asfriend, 292-93; of history, 662-75passim, 717-18; and the work of theHoly Spirit, 249-50, 870-72; humanityof, 29, 190, 376, 506, 698, 705-38, 752,753,755, 770-72,778,804; as judge,685,689,1202; as the key to knowledgeof human nature, 506, 507, 514-15; asking, 767-68,772; knowledge of, 709-10,735; liberalism’s view of, 306, 1156;monarchianism’s view of, 333-34; newsearch for the historical, 665,667-68; asthe central point in the doctrine ofpredestination (Barth), 922-23;preexistence of, 685-86, 690, 753, 764;

as priest, 769, 772, 783, 812, 827, 833(see also Atonement); as prophet,763-67,772; reconstructions of the lifeof, 22n, 90-91, 111; relationshipbetween the Father and, 514, 685-86,687-88, 698, 806, 808-09, 8 17; asrevelation, 190-91; as the solerevelation of God (Barth), 164-66;sayings of, 85, 86, 88, 97, 101-02, 104;search for the historical, 60-61, 88,663-65; self-consciousness of, 684-88;sinlessness of, 208-09, 718-21, 742,.755-56; supernaturalness of, 91,246; .teachings of, as basis of Christianity,36-37; temptation of, 598, 720; andwomen, 547-48. See also Christ

Jesus-God and Man (Pannenberg), 668,691

Jewett, Paul King, 223, 329n, 545, 1097nJob, 401John, 89John XXIII, 1140John of Antioch, 728John of Damascus, 795-96John on the virgin birth, silence of, 751Johnston, Francis E., 543nJonah, 373,396Jones, Rufus M., 1083nJones, William, 542, 591Joseph (Old Testament), 181, 361, 389,

400Joseph (New Testament) as source of

tradition, 744-46Joyce, G. C., 391nJudaism and belief in a virgin birth, 744,

753Judas, 230-31, 237-38, 936-37, 991, 995,

996Judea, 1053Judge, Jesus as, 685,689Judgment, final, 1000, 1200-04, 1220,

1235-36; subjects of the, 1202-03Judicial authority, 257, 258Judicial nature of union with Christ, 952,

953Julian of Eclanum, 633Justice: of God, 288-89, 295, 297-98; the

atonement as a demonstration ofdivine, 788-92, 820-2 1

Justification, 903-04, 954-61, 969, 1008,1012-14

Justin Martyr, 329, 332, 435, 694n, 1209

KBhler, Martin, 664-65,7 17Kaiser, Walter, 235nKant, Immanuel, 19,42n, 112,155,159,

160,177Karma, 611Kasemann, Ernst, 60-61,97,665,667,691Kaufman, Edmund G., 1233nKaufman, Gordon D., 63nKaufmann, Walter, 42n, 82n, 103nKeil, Carl F., 556Kelley, Dean M., 1067Kelly, J. N. D., 589n, 633n, 713n,714n,

715n, 716n, 726n, 727n, 729n, 849n,909n

Kelsey, David, 183Kelsey, Morton, 1230nKendrick, Klaude, 855n, 856nKenosis, 735Kenoticism, 732-33Kerygma, 87,91,666,668-69,673-74,747Kierkegaard, S&-en, 45,46-47,104,164,

192,315-16,586-87,673,716,896nKik, J. Marcellus, 1135n“Kind,” 383,480King, Jesus as, 767-68,772King, Martin Luther, 657Kingdom: and thechurch, 1041-42,1043;

ofGod,646,1156,1158,1159,1163,1226; of God as present reality(postmillennialism), 1208; of heaven,1163,1226; immanence of the, 1188-89

Kirk, Kenneth E., 1071nKittel, Gerhard, 67Klein, Ralph W., 82nKleinknecht, Hermann, 976nKnight, G. A. F., 328Knowledge: explosion, 62; of God, 180,

181,267,275-76,280; in heaven, 1233;of Jesus, 709-10,735; medium of, 254;objective and subjective, 895-96;perfect, 1000,1228

KoLvwvia , 1055Koornhert , Theodore, 9 13- 14Kraus, Bertram S., 485Krentz, Edgar, 82nKrienke, Hartmut, 924n, 925n, 926nKromminga, Diedrich, 12 12nKuhn, Harold, 64nKuhn, Helmut, 45nKuiper, R. B., 827,833Kiing, Hans, 903-04Kuypcr, Abraham, 203nKyle, M. G., 597n

LaBerge, Agnes N., 855nLadd, George E., 82n, 89n, 91n, 687n, 701,

766n,809,810,931,940n,941n,942n,953n, 955n, 964n, 975n, 976,977,978n,1041-42,1043,1189n, 1191,1192n,1198n, 1210,121 In, 1217n, 1220n,1221n, 1222,1223n, 1224n

Lake, Kirsopp, 65Lammerts, Walter E., 480nLang, George H., 1223nLangone, John M., 553nLanguage: meaning of, 48-49; functions

of, 49-50; theology and, 127-49; games,133-34,137; as mark of man, 484,485-86

Last things. See EschatologyLate Great Planet Earth (Lindsey), 1152Latourette, Kenneth Scott, 1066, 1137,

1138nLaubach, Fritz, 934n, 937nLaw, 210,288-89; condemnation of the,

821-22; as expression of God’s nature,286-87,802-03; guilt as violation of,606-07; role of the, 172,975-78; asunifying factor, 1131; upholding of the,789-92,820-21; violation of universal,570-71; works of the, 959

Legalism, 959,978Legends, 86Legislative authority, 257,258Legitimacy, questioning of Jesus’, 746-47Leibniz, Gottfried von, 358-59,422Levels of meaning, 146-48Lewis, Arthur, 98 1,982nLewis, C. S., lO3,155,289n, 408n, 425n,

432n,465-66,95On, 1232n, 1239n, 1240,1246

Lewis, Gordon, 1219nLex talionis, 555-56Liberal approach to eschatology, 1156-57,

1175-76Liberalism, 60,113,163,197,205,206,

228,304-06,478,489,522-24,537,663-64,740-4 1,766

Liberation theology, 590-93,599,657,889,890,891-95,1004-07

Liberty of the children of God, 963-64Life (attribute of God), 271-72,289Life and Work, 1139Life-span of theologies, 60-61Lights displaying God’s glory (Barth), 165Likeness: to Christ, 970; of God

(distinguished from the image), 500-01

1288

Limbus infhntium, 1092, 1179Limbus patrum, 774,1179Limitations: of man, 491-93,653-54; of

the incarnate Christ, 735-36Limited atonement, 826-29,833-35,914,

918,1016Limited inerrancy, 222-23Lindsell, Harold, 222n, 231,1059n, 1144Lindsey, Hal, 1152Literary-framework theory, 381,382Literary-source criticism, 83,84-85,95Logic: to all truth, applicability of, 55-56;

within creation, 312Logical empiricism, 135Logical positivism, 49, 128, 131-33, 135,

137,149,228,239Logos, 334,714,755,765Logotherapy, 115 1Lohmeyer, Ernst, 325n, 689-90Lombard, Peter, 9 12Longacre, Robert E., 529-30Loofs, Friedrich, 727n, 775n“Lord,” 690-91Lord’s Supper, 1107-27; administrator of

the, 1113-14,1124; as acommemoration, 1120,1122-23;efficacy of the, 1113,1123-24; elementsof the, 1115,1125-26; establishment ofthe, by Christ, 1109; frequency of the,1126-27; Lutheran view ofthe, 1117-18,1121;presenccofChristinthe, 1112-13,1119,1120,1121-23;asaformofproclamation, 1111; recipients of the,1114, 1124-25; Reformed view of the,111 B-20; necessity of repetition of the,1110; restricted to believers, 1112;Rornan Catholic view of the, 111516,1121;assacrifice,1116,1117;asaspiritual benefit, llll-12,1118; as asymbol of the relationship betweenbelievers, 1111, 1112; symbolism of the,1123-24; Zwinglian view of the, 1120-21

Love: of God, 180,266,267,280,292-98,347,767,817-l8,821,832;ofGodasacontradictionofhell, 1018-20, 1235,1239-40; of God, atonement asdemonstration of the, 767,78588,820;as element ofesscntial humanity,514-l 5; inability to, 619; infusion of,852; inseparability from God’s, 3YO; asthe cssc~ncc of the law, 977-78; ofneighbor, 1058; as an analogy of theTrinity, 339

Lovclact>, Richard, 226n

Name and Subject Index

Lowe, Walter, 888nLower criticism, 83Luke, 8.5,96Luther, Martin, 40,77,167,226,501,675,

852,912-13,955,1008,1044,1092,1104,1113,1114,1117-18

Lutherans, 1078Lutheran views: of baptism, 1090-93,

1097-l 100,1104; of the Lord’s Supper,1117-18,112l; of 1 Peter3:18-19,775

Lyell, Charles, 380Lyman, Eugene W., 918n

McClellan, Robert W., 553nMcClintock, Stuart, 40nMacCulloch, J. Ai, 545nMacedonians, 85 1McGiffert, A. C., 19n, 252n, 747n, 773n,

940nMachen, J. Gresham, 110-l 1,355n, 747n,

748,979Machine, man as a, 463-64,470,471McIntire, Carl, 1140Mackintosh, Hugh Ross, 679n, 733nMcKnight, Edgar V., 82n, 85n, 86nMaclean, A. J., 445nMcNutt, William Roy, 1080nMacquarrie, John, 47n, 63n, l30,773n,

1027Magnification, 215-16Magnificence of God, 78Man: age of, 484-87; brotherhood of,

489-90; constitution of, 519-39; divinityof (liberalism), 305; doctrine of, and thedoctrine of the atonement, 783;doctrine of, and the doctrine of sin, 562;finiteness of, 49 l-93; as locus of generalrevelation, 155; greatness of, 493;identity of, 471,488,531,534; image ofGod in, 471,495-517,737; images of,462-72; kinship of, with othercreatures, 488-89; limitations of,49 l-93,653-54; as the measure of truth,114,116; uniqueness of, 489; value of,471,487-88,490,516.SeealsoHumanity

Manducation, 1118Manichaeism, 375,414Manifestations, the Trinity as three, 333,

337Manley, G. T., 269nMantey, Julius, 993Marburg Colloquy, 1 117Marcel, Gabriel, 45

Name and Subject Index

Marcion, 295Marcionism, 713,714Mark, 85,96,209; on the virgin birth,

silence of, 750Mark, missing the, 567-69Marriage, 122; supper of the Lamb, 1232Marshall, I. Howard, 990n, 992n, 994n,

1014nMartin, Ralph, 32%Martineau, James, 206nMarty, Martin, 1134nMarx, Karl, 42n, 363,466n, 1243Marxism,592,658,1151,1161Marxsen, Willi, 96,lOZnMary, 713-14,741,749-50,757; as source

of tradition, 744-46Mascall, Eric, 951nMaterial aspect of the image of God

(Brunner), 503,s 11Materialism, 54,363Mathematical-type statements, 49,128,

131Matter: and form, 525,528; as evil, 713Matthew, 85,94,96Matthias, 396Maves, Paul B ., 522nMay, Rollo, 308nMeaning: of language, 48-49; of biblical

teachings, analysis of, 70; levels of,146-48

Meaninglessness, accusation of, 128-33,135-49

Means of salvation, 1003- 15Mediator (Bnmner), 666Medium: of knowledge, 254; of salvation,

conceptions of the, 889-90Meeting in the air, 1222-23, 1224Melanchthon, Philipp, 37,675Mellert, Robert B., 52nMembership, church, 1047-48; degrees of,

903Memory as criterion of identity, 531-32,

534-3sMenninger, Karl, 563n, 6 16Mennonites, 1097Mercy of God, 266,267,295-96Message distinguished from

interpretation, 118Metaphysical, view of union with Christ

as, 949“Metaphysical Club,” 42Metaphysical synthesis, theological

languagcas, 141-46Methodist church, 1070, 1071

1289

Methodist Episcopal Church, 1136Methodological issue (evangelicals and

ecumenism), 1144-45Michael, 44 1,450Michalson, Carl, 1029Michel, Otto, 936,937nMidtribulationism, 1223Miley, John, 789n, 792Milhaven, John G., 427nMill, John Stuart, 42Millennium, 1042,1164; views of the,

120517,1220,1224Miller, J. Maxwell, 82nMiller, Park Hays, 1076nMilligan, George, 973nMinear, Paul S., 1034nMinistry, conduct of, 462,539,562-63Miracles, 67,87, 106,107,247,277,304,

318,388,406-09,663,740-41,753-54,84 1,87 1; purposes of, 409

Miracle stories, 86,93Miscarriage, 554-55Missing the mark, 567-69Missionary endeavor and the Calvinistic

doctrine of predestination, 92 1,927Mitchell, T. C., 487nMixter, Russell L., 384nMoberg, David O., 552n, 656n, 1059nModalistic monarchianism, 334-35,336,

337,340Models, contemporary synthetic, 74-75Modernism, 74, 113Modernized eschatology, 1156-57Modernizing, peril of: Jesus, 22; the

Bible, 69Moede, Gerald F., 1071nMohammed, 245Moltmann, Jiirgen, 62,66,27Sn, 1005-06,

1152n, 1161-62Monarchianism, 333-35Monism, 377,421,422,524-27, 1176,

1177; contingent, 536-39. See alsoDichotomism

Monotheism, 323-24,337Montanism, 851-52Montgomery, John Warwick, 1142,1143nMoody, Dale, 32,63n, 612n, 741-42,752,

763,87ln, 990nMoon, Sun Myung, 245Moore, G. E., 48,128Moore, G. F., 977nMoral attributes, 267,771Moral consciousness. awakening of. 584,

585

1290

Moral evil, 412,428Moral imperative, 155,159Moral-influence theory of the atonement,

767,785-88,815,820Moral purity of God, 284-89Mormonism, 268,498Morris, Charles W., 143,144Morris, Leon, 325n, 685-86,71On, 720,

782,810,814,1070n, 1071n, 1074n,1082n, 1098n, 1227n, 1236n

Mortalism, pure, 1237Moses, 82-83,184,284,389; Assumption

of, 214,234Motif, central interpretive, 77-78Mott, John R., 1138Mott, Stephen, 649nMotyer, J.A., 1231n, 1233n, 1235nMoule, Charles, 681nMoulton, James Hope, 957n, 973nMoulton, W. F., 840nMouw, Richard J., 648n, 650nMovement in salvation, direction of,

890-9 1Mowinckel, Sigmund 0. P, 509Miiller, Gustav Emil, 42nMullins, Edgar Y., 267nMuncy, W. L., Jr., 935nMurch, James DeForest, 1135n, 1141n,

1142nMurk, James W., 485Murray, John, 815n, 817,835,932-33,

948n, 952,96ln, 987n, 997nMutations, 162,383Mutuality of believers, 1037-38Mysterium tremendum, 318Mystery, 359n; the Trinity as a, 338,341Mystical, view of union with Christ as,

950Mythology, incarnation viewed as, 677-81Myths, 86,106,107; and the virgin birth,

pagan, 744,752-53

Name of God, 269Narrative passages, 69National Association of Evangelicals,

1141-42National Council of Congregational

Churches, 1139National Council of the Churches of

Christ, 1136, 1140, 1141Natural attributes, 267,771Natural evil,412,428Natural headship, 635-38Naturalism, 54,304

Name and Subject Index

Naturalistic evolution, 478-79Natural law and the virgin birth, 753-54Natural laws and miracles, 406-09Natural sciences, 72Natural selection, 162,478-79Natural theology, 27,32,72,156-71,299,

314Nature: of Christ, relationship between

study of the work and, 675-77,699-700,702-03,762; as locus of generalrevelation, 154,156; God’s relation to,303; God’s preservation of, 391; God’sgovernance of, 394-95; and grace, 902

Nauta, D., 1045nNearness of God. See Immanence of GodNecessity concerning the future, sense of,

350Need met by salvation, conceptions of

the, 889Negation, method of, 299Neighbor, love of, 1058Neill,Stephen,91,677n,681nNelson, Herbert J., 51nNeolithic elements in Genesis 4,486-87Neoorthodoxy, 23,24n, 60,114,183-86,

191,194,196,197,228,244,252-53,525,537,940,1123,1176

Neo-Pentecostalism, 836,856,877Neo-Platonism, 375Nestorianism, 726-28,730,732,738New birth. See RegenerationNew England Fellowship, 1141New hermeneutic, 64Newman, Albert Henry, 245nNew Testament, inspiration of the, 2 11Nicea, Council of, 695,698,714Nicholas of Cusa, 82Nicodemus, 873,943,1098Nicole, Roger, 222n, 810nNiebuhr, H. Richard, 856Niebuhr, Reinhold, 47,579,585-88,589,

595,597n, 599Nielsen, Kai, 146Nietzsche, Friedrich, 45,116Nineveh, 279Noah, 380,542-43,622,775Noetus of Smyrna, 334Nominalism, 287Nonbeing, 370Nonbiblical disciplines, illumination

from, 72-73Nongovernment, 1082-83Nonpropositional revelation, 191-96,224Nonviolence, 657

Name and Subject Index

Nordholt, H. G. Schulte, 657nNormative authoritativeness, 2 17,259Nothing, creation out of, 367-70Novatianism, 852Nowell-Smith, Patrick, 407nNumbers, problems with, 229-30,236Nygren, Anders, 77

Obedience as element of essentialhumanity, 5 14

Objective dimension of authority, 251-53,257

Objective knowledge, 895-96Objective theories of the atonement, 786,

789,791,796Objective truth, 46,55,104. See also

Propositional view of special revelationObjectivism, 55Objects of salvation, conceptions of the,

891Obsolescence, 105-07Ockham, William of, l67,287n, 419,422Oden, Thomas C., 470nOehler, Gustave F., 574n, 805n, 939nOffices of Christ, 762-63Oldham, Joseph H., 1138Old Testament, inspiration of the, 201-03Old Testament believers: salvation of,

976,980-82; status of, 1048-49Old Testament sacrificial system, 804-06,

812Olsen, Roger, 381nOmnipotence, 266, 276-78, 318, 400, 412,

413-17Omnipresence, 266,267,273, 318Omniscience, 275-76, 280, 290; of the

Holy Spirit, 858Oneness: with Christ, 948-54,958-59,960,

974-75, 988, 1037, 1100-01; of God,323-24, 337, 341

Ong, Walter, 1029Ontological argument, 159-60, 272Opportunity, theory of universal, 10 16Oppression as sin, 591, 599, 642Oral traditions, 83, 85-87, 92-93, 94, 200Orange, Synod of, 911Order as principle of church government,

1085, 1086Orders, holy, 1009Ordinance, baptism as an, 1096Ordinary language philosophy, 49Ordination, 107 I ; dcgr-ecx of, 1070Organic unity, 1136-37()rigen, I IO, 434, 500, 52 I, 589, 694n,

1291

746n, 793-94,848,849,911,1015,1017,1018n, 1199n, 1209, 1236n

Origin: meaning of the term, 473-74; ofhumanity, 473-93

Originals, inerrancy of, 239-40Original sin, 583,629-39,915, 1091, 1179Orr, James, 20,54n, 223n, 232,304n, 711,

741n, 742n, 744n, 848n, 1150Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1140,

1141Osborne, Grant, 95, 100, 102nOtt, Ludwig, 1044n, 1045n, 1072n, 1073nOttley, Robert L., 731nOtto, Rudolf, 19, 318Ousia, 335-37Ozman, Agnes, 855

Packer, J. I., 208nPaley, William, 247nPalmer, Edwin H., 914nPanentheism, 307Pannenberg, Wolfhart, 62, 186, 228,

668-71, 672, 691-93, 753, 777nPantheism, 303,377, 420, 949Paradigm-case technique, 134Paradise, 1183Paradox of grace, 733-34Paraphrases of the Bible, 117Pardon, theory of universal, 1017Parham, Charles, 855“Parish” view of the church, 1046-47Parmenides, 5 1Hapovala, 1189,1191-92Partial rapture, 1223Participle, adverbial, 993Particular atonement, 826-29, 833-35, See

also Limited atonementParticularism, 891Patience of God. See Persistence of GodPatripassianism, 335Patte, Daniel, 82nPaul, 169, 212,223, 544-45; on women,

548, 549; silence of, on the virgin birth,751

Paul of Samosata, 333-34, 849Paulus, H. E. G., 1109Pawn of the universe, man as a, 467-68Payne, Buckner H., 543nPayne, J. Barton, 1193n, 1224nPearce, E. K. Victor, 486nPecock, Reginald, 82Pedcrsen, Johannes, 528Pence, Charles Sanders, 43, 44Pelagianism, 61 l-12, 632-33, 635, 784

. _. .._-.. ._... ._.._. .

1292

Pelagius, 632-33, 908- 11Pelikan, Jaroslav, 25n, 729n“Penal substitution” (Grotius), 790Penal-substitution theory of the

atonement. See Satisfaction theory ofthe atonement

Penance, 1009Penelhum, Terence, 531-32, 534Pentateuchal criticism, 83Pentecost, 880, 1048Pentecostalism, 836, 855-56, 877People of God, 903; the church as the,

1035-36Perfection, 1000, 1232-33; of God. See

Holiness of GodPerfectionism, 97 l-74Perichoresis, 335Permanence: locus of, in Christianity,

107-12; criteria of, 120-24. See alsoConstancy of God

Permanent truths, 7 1Perrin, Norman, 82n, 95,97,99,102n, 103Perseverance, 905, 914, 985-997Persistence of God, 296-97Personal idealism, 415Personalism, 4 15Personality, human: God as ground of,

308; as analogy of the Trinity, 339-41Personal language, theological language

as, 137-40, 149, 194Personal nature: of God, 139-40, 268-71,

3 10, 347; of God’s government, 402-03;of special revelation, 177-78, 185,191-96

Personal relationship with God, 139-40Person of Christ, relationship between

study of the work and, 675-77,699-700,702-03, 762

Perversion, 574-75Peter, 94, 212, 286, 296-97, 544, 545, 995,

1040-4 1Pfleiderer, Otto, 583Pharisees, 184, 197, 202Phenomenal language, 222,237Phenomena of Scripture, 204, 208-09,

2 14; inerrancy and, 229-33Phenomenology, 56Philctus, 991, 995, 1197Philipps, J. B., 263, 265Philological definition of the church,

1030-34Philosophical theology, 27-28Philosophy and theology, 39-58

Name and Subject Index

Physical death, 611-13, 961, 1169-71,1172, 1173-74

Physical pleasures and heaven, 1228,1232

Pictorial-day theory, 381, 382Pieper, Franz, 1078n, 1079n, 1090n,

1091n, 1092n, 1113nPietistic approach to the church, 1045-46Pike, Kenneth, 197,215-16Pinnock, Clark, 91nPiper, Otto, 753nPittenger, Norman, 5 1Pity of God. See Mercy of GodPlace, heaven as a, 1231-32Plan, God’s, 345-63; efficaciousness of,

348, 353, 354; all-inclusiveness of,348-49, 353; nature of, 351-54. See alsoProvidence

Plantinga, Alvin, 413Plato, 41, 254, 374n, 375, 713, 1033Pleasures and heaven, physical, 1228,

1232Plural: quantitative, 328; of majesty,

328-29Plutarch, 752Plymouth Brethren, 1045, 1083, 1162Pneumatomachians, 851Pohle, Joseph, 775n, 902n, 1007, 1008,

1009n, 1113n, 1116n, 1150n, 1178n,1179, 1180n, 1228n

Poles, 73, 280Political activity as religious, 305-06Political realities, 653Political reform, 656-57Politicized eschatology, 116 l-62Poor, biblical teaching on the, 549-51“Poor God” syndrome, 272Pope, 1070, 1072; infallibility of, 242,246Postmillennialism, 1205-09, 1210, 1211,

1212, 1213, 1215, 1216Posttribulationism, 1206, 1217, 1220-23,

1224; imminent, 1223-24Power of God, 267,276-78,347Powers, 648-52Practical dimension of theology, 22Pragmatics, 143Pragmatism, 42-44Praxeas, 334Prayer and providence, 405-06Preaching of the Word: as a mark of the

church, 1047; as a function of thechurch, 1056

Pre-Adamite theory, 486, 487

Name arid Subject Index

Preceptive will, 417,419Precision, degree of, 2 15- 16Preconscious, 1126Predestinate, 346Predestination, 907-28; vocabulary of,

924-25Pre-Easter claim to authority, Jesus’,

669-70, 692Preexistence of Jesus, 685-86, 690, 753,

764Premillennialism, 1205, 1206, 1209-12,

1214, 1215, 1216-17Presbyterian conception of baptism,

1093-95, 1100, 1104Presbyterian form of church government,

1074-78, 1081, 1086Presbytery, 1076Presence: of Christ in the Lord’s Supper,

1112-13, 1119, 1120, 1121-23; of God,heaven as the, 1228

Preservation, providence as, 388-94Presuppositions, 26, 56-57, 66-67, 68, 90Preterist view, 1154, 1159Pretribulationism, 1191-92, 1206,

1217-20, 1224Preunderstanding, awareness of personal,

26Prevenient grace, 634, 914, 920, 925, 931Price, George McCready, 38 1 nPrice, James, 90n, 92, 93n, 94nPrice, Robert M., 1059nPride, 894, 1245Priest, Jesus as, 769, 772, 783, 812, 827,

833. See also AtonementPriest, Josiah, 542nPriesthood of all believers, 122, 1080,

1084, 1085-86Primordial being, death of the, 116, 309Primordial nature, 280Principalities, 649-50Probability, 58, 104Process, liberal emphasis on creation of

man as a, 478Process of revelation, 185, 196, 198Process philosophy, 51-53, 55, 280, 367,

1232Process theology, 264, 279-81, 370Procksch, Otto, 97On, 97lnProdigal son, 293Product 01 rcvclation, 185, 197Progress: doctrine of, I 157; in heaven, no

need for, 1232-33Progrcssi\,c creationism, 367, 383-84,

48 l-84

12Y3

Progressive revelation, 123, 197-98Properties, 265Prophecy, 210, 1215; fulfilment of, 246,

349-50; as the work of the Spirit, 867Prophesying as a function of the church,

1056Prophet, Jesus as, 763-67, 772Prophets, authority of, 245Propitiation, 809-11, 812, 817-18Propositional view of special revelation,

191-97Protestant Episcopal Church, 1139Protevangelium of James, 745Providence, 387-410; as preservation,

388-94; as government, 394-405; andsin, 398-401; and prayer, 405-06; andmiracles, 406-09

Psychological oneness, view of union withChrist as, 950-51

Psychology, 72Psychosomatic illness, 407Psychosomatic ministry, 539Punishment, 607-I 1, 791; degrees of, in

hell, 1240; eternality of future, 1237-40;indirect, 610-l 1; liability to, 803, 915,954, 961; love of God as contradictoryto eternal, 1018-20, 1235, 1239-40

Purgatory, 1178-8 1Purification as central concept of

baptism, 1095Purity of God, 284-89Purpose: explanation in terms of, 138;

knowledge of God’s, 139; in universe asproof of God (teleological argument),158, 161, 162-63; inerrancy of, 223;inerrancy in terms of, 236-37

Purtill, Richard L., 1184

“Q,” 85, 204Qahal, 103 l-32Quakers, 1083Qualitative distinction between God and

man, 315-16Quantitative plural, 328Quebedeaux, Richard, 856n, 979nQuenstedt, Johanncs, 436Question-and-answer approach to

theology, 73, 308Quest of the Historical Jesus (Schweitzer),

664

Races in the image of God, all, 542-45Racial sin, 427

1294 Name and Subject IndexName and Subject Index 1295

Rahner, Karl, 902,903Ramm, Bernard, 33n, 178n, 179n, 187n,

l95,196n, 198n, 242n, 251,349n, 382n,408n, 997n, 998n, 999n, 1001,1012n,1229n

Ramsdell, Edwin, 54Ramsey, Ian, 146-48,681Randall, John Herman, Jr., 43n, 305n,

582n, 740Ransom, 807,828; theory of the

atonement, 792-96,797,821-22Rapture, 1190-92,1218,1219,1220,1222;

partial, 1223Rashdall, Hastings, 785-86Rast, Walter E., 82nRationalism, 854,1066Rationalist theodicy, 422Rauschenbusch, Walter, 112,306nRaven, J. H., 866nRealism, 55,287Realistic headship, 635-38Reality, flight from, 6 16Realized eschatology, 1158-59Reason, 157-58,255-57; as means of

establishing the divine origin of theBible, 246-47; emphasis on, 854; andfaith, 103-04,158,673-74,941; viewedastheimageofGod,499,501,512;needto naturalize, 672

Rebellion, 572-73Rebirth. See RegenerationReconciliation, 8 14- 15,963; theory of

universal, 1017Reconciling role of Christ, 768-69. See

also AtonementRedaction criticism, 83,95-102Redaktionsgeschichte, 96Redlich, Basil, 85n, 86n, 90nRedpath, Henry A., 807nReform, 656-57,658Reformed conception: of baptism,

1093-95,1100,1104; of the Lord’sSupper, 1118-20

Reformed system of church government,1076

Regeneration, 171,249,256,600,655-56,658,873,905,932-33,942-46,954,988;baptismal, 1090, 1097-98,1099-l 100;and the Old Testament believer, 980-81

Rehabilitation, punishment as, 609Reichenbach, Bruce, 530-3 l,533n, 538Reign of God, 112Rejection of authority, 619“Relational theology,” 889

Relational views of the image of God,502-08,510-11,513-14

Relationship with God: personal, 139-40;sin’s effects on, 429,602-15

Relationship with others, sin’s effects on,618-19

Relative attributes, 267,771Relevance, 114Religion: nature of, 17-21; pragmatism’s

view of, 44; worldwide phenomenon of,174

“Religion, Revelation, and the Future”(Moltmann), 1005

“Religionless Christianity,” 900Religious form of the problem of evil, 413Remedial nature of special revelation,

176-77Remission and satisfaction, 791-92Remonstrants, 829,989Renan, Ernest, 663Repeated reproduction, 92Repentance, 872,934,935-38,941-42,

946; and baptism, 1099Representative language, 13 1Reprobation, 346Responsibility, human, 46, 171-73,376,

419Rest in heaven, 1229-30Restlessness, 575-76,618Restoration, theory of universal, 1017-18Restorationism, 1236Results of sin, terms emphasizing, 575-77Resurrection, 29,123,186,223,612,

670-71,691-93,718,755n, 776-77,783,1194-1200; of the body, 109-10,524,525,531,536-38,1175-76,1181-82,1195,1196-99,123l; instantaneous,1181-83; of unbelievers, 1200

Resurrections: two, 1210-l 1,1214-15,1216-17,1223; three, 1218,1224

Retribution, 791; punishment as, 608-09Revelation, 673,762; accommodated,

223-24; amillennial interpretation ofthe Book of, 12 13; Barth’s view of, 508,7 17; Christ’s coming with the saints inthe, 1190-92; of the dead, 1182; andfaith, 940; as historical events, 63; ashistory, 186-87,692; in history, 182-83,189; through history, 183-86;distinguished from inspiration, 200;liberal definition of, 305; progressive,123,197-98; as self-manifestation of thepersonal God, 138; as basic source oftheology, 53; as one action of the three

persons of the Trinity, 336. See alsoGeneral revelation; Special revelation

Revelatory role of Christ, 763-67Reverence, need for, 3 18Reversal, law of, 400Revivalism, 855Revolution, 657-58,1006Reward in heaven, degrees of, 1233-34Rice, John R., 207n, 978nRichards, Le Grand, 498nRichardson, Alan, 123 1 nRidderbos, N. H., 381n, 382nRight and wrong, 287,419Righteousness: forensic, 955-59; of God,

286-88; imputation of Christ’s, 635,638-39,818-19

Right hand, session at the Father’s, 779Ritschl,Albrecht, l9,112,163,585,817n,

1156Robber Synod, 729Robertson, A. T., 249n, 813-14Roberts-Thomson, E., 1145Robinson, D. W. B., 1098nRobinson, H. Wheeler, 526-27,528Robinson, John A. T., ll4,313n, 525-29,

901,1236n, 1239Robinson, William Childs, 691,701nRogers, Jack, 26n, 223nRohde, Joachim, 97nRoman Catholic Church, 82,853, 1070,

1071,1072Roman Catholic conceptions: of

authority, 245,246; of baptism,1090-92, 1097-l 100,1104; of thechurch, 90 l-03,1044; of the Lord’sSupper, 1115-16,112l; of permanentelement in Christianity, 108; of 1 Peter3:18-19,774-75; ofpurgatory, 1178-81;of salvation, 889,901-04,979,1007-l 1

Romanticism, 854Ross, Alexander, 10 14nRoss-Hinsler, F., 75nRostow, Walt W., 892nRutinus, 795Rule of Christ, 767-68Ruling elder, 1077Russell, Bertrand, 48, 128,467Ryrie, Charles C., 1163n

Sabatier, Auguste, 207nSabbath, 685Sabellius, 334Sacerdotalism, 1114,11!6,1117

Sacramental, view of union with Christas, 951

Sacramentalism, 889,1007-l 1,1114Sacramentalist view of baptism, 1090-93,

1097-l 100,1104Sacraments, 1008-10,1144; as a mark of

the church, 1047. See also Baptism;Lord’s Supper; Sacramentalism

Sacrifice, 121,123,807,809,811-12,827;the Lord’s Supper as, 1116,1117; OldTestament, 71,804-06,812

Salmond, S. D. F., 1234nSalvation, 29,172-73,317-18,352,757,

887-1022; conceptions of, 887-905;continuation of, 967-83; completion of,9851002; extent of, 891,1015-22; andGod’s grace, 295; history, 204,699-700,702; means of, 1003-15; objectiveaspects of the beginning of, 947-65; ofOld Testament believers, 976,980-82;doctrine of sin and the doctrine of, 562;subjective aspects of the beginning of,929-46; by works, 633,118 1

Samaria, 1053-54Samarin, William J., 879nSamaritan woman, 401Sanctification, 256,853,875,903,905,

945,967-74,1008; complete orincomplete, 971-74; in the OldTestament, 982

Sanctifying grace, 1008,1044Sanday, William, 957n, 958Sandys-Wunsch, John, 24nSantayana, George, 27Sarah, 115,276,291Sargent, William, 879nSartre, Jean-Paul, 45,46,48,468,1065Sasse, Hermann, 644nSatan, 400-01,428-29,44ln, 448-49,

450-51,645,648,793-95,797,798,821-22, 1206-07

Satisfaction and remission, 791-92Satisfaction theory of the atonement,

790,791,796-99; objections to the,8 1 S- 19; in relation to the other theories,8 19-22; implications of the, 822-23

Saul, 990-9 1,995Sayers, Dorothy, 5 15Sayings of Jesus, 85,86,88,97, 101-02,

104Schaeffer, Francis, 48n, 74, 155,378nSchaff, Philip, 730nSchanz,Paul,Zl In&helling, Fricdrich, 42n. 1201

12%

Schleiermacher, Friedrich, 19,60,304,305,306n, 475,578,676,803,854-55

Schlick, Moritz, 49, 128Schmid, Heinrich, 854n, 1046n, 1047nSchmidt, Karl, 1031,1033Schoen, Barbara, 46 1 nScholarship as a function of the church,

1056Scholasticism, 299,500,675; Protestant,

854,940Scholz, Heinrich, 35Schrenk, Gottlob, 957, 1201nSchuller, Robert H., 563nSchweitzer, Albert, 664, 1158-59,1188nSchweizer, Eduard, 867n, 871nScience: theology as, 33-36; natural, 72;

behavioral, 72,378; and theology, 367,378-79; creation doctrine and, 378-84,386,478-84; and providence, 388

Scientific advance as background ofsecular theology, 899

Scientific data and biblical teaching,378-84,386,478-84

Scientific language, limitations of,137-38,149

Scientific method, 34Scientific refcrenccs in the Bible, 222-23,

227,237Scientific-type statements. S~>CJ Synthetic

statementsScoficld Rcfcrence Bible, 1 162, 1 163nScotland, Church of, 1103Scott, Jack B., Y39nScripture: as the starting point of

theology, 32-33; as the primary sourceof theology, 36-37; as revelation, 196-98;didactic material and phenomenailluminating the nature of, 209;establishing the meaning and divineorigin of, 246-47; as objectiveauthority, 251-53,256-57; authority of,853

Sea, molten, 222,231,236Seal : of t hc covenant, baptism as a,

1093-95, I 100, 1104; the Lord’s Supperas a, 1 1 19

Starch for the historical Jesus, 663-65;IIC’\V, 665, 667-68

Sc>cond <hanc,c. 1017, I236Sccot~tl c,c)lilirig, 77Y, YYX, 1 156.57,

I I X6-Y4, 122Y; character 01 the,1 I XH-90; tl~~lillitcncss ol the, I I X6-87;in~mincncc’ol the. 1 lY2-Y4, 12lY-20,1223; illrl~lir~it~~~~ssol the timeol the,I 187-88; pc*r”“nal IIaturt~ of the.

Name and Subject Index

1188-89; physical nature 01. the, I 1 Xc);unexpected nature of the, 1190, 12 19;unity of the, 1190-92; visible nature ofthe, 1189-90

Second death, 1170,1214Secularism, 74Secularization in evangelical circles, 979Secular theology, 116,898-901Security, man’s attempt to gain, 897-98Seebass, Horst, 969nSeeley, Paul H., 484n, 486nSegundo, Juan Luis, 1004-05Selby, Henry A., 543nSelf-centeredness, 287-88,618; God’s lack

of, 287-88,293-94Self-consciousness of Jesus, 684-88Self-deceit, 6 17Self-esteem, 1066Self-examination beforc the Lord’s

Supper, 1111,1112,1116,1124Selfishness, 287-88,643; viewed as the

essence of sin, 579-80Self-orientation, 896-98Semantics, 143Semantics of‘Biblica1 Language (Barr),

527,701Semi-Arians, 697,703Semi-Pelagianism, 911Sense data, verifiability by, 49,128-32,

137Sensuality, 587; viewed as the essence of

sin, 578-79Sententia Remonstrantium, 989Separation, 978-80Seraphim, 440,442Serial remembering, 92-93Sermon on the Mount, 111Servanthood, sense of, 108 1Serve, willingness to, 1067-68Service in heaven, 1230-3 1Session, 1076Session at the Father’s right hand, 779Setting as criterion of permanence,

universal, 121-22Seventh-day Adventism, 1176-77,1238nSexes created in the image of God, both,

545-49Sex in heaven, the question of, 1232Sexual being, man as a, 464-66Sexual dilf‘erentiation as the image of

God, SOS-06,507,545Seymour, William J., 856Shaner. Donald W., 548-4’3Shedd, William G. T., 265n, 298nSheep, parable of the one lost, 293,403

Name and Subject Index

Shelton College, I 140Shema, 323Sheol, 524,774Sic et non (Abelard), 157Sickness, physical, 836-4 1Significant comparison, 134Sign of the covenant, baptism as a,

1093-95,1100,1104Signs: of the second coming, 1190; theory

of, 143Silence on the virgin birth, 748-52Simon, Ulrich, 1230n, 1232nSimpson, A. B., 836,838-39Sin, 904,905; Jesus’ claim to forgive,

684-85; consequences of, 288,960-61,1173-74; views of the cure for, 599-600;denial of, 6 16- 17; difficulty ofdiscussing, 563-64; effects of, 170,173,176-77,247,255-56,428; essentialnature of, 577-80; in general, evil in.general as result of, 427-29; specific evilas result of specific, 430-3 1; extent of,621-25; “germ” theory of, 429; andGod’s will, 361; God as “cause” of, 361,399,418-19; asseekingtobeindependent from God, 377,432; andGod’s governing activity, 398-401;inescapability of, 972; intensiveness of,625-31; magnitude of, 621-39; man’sresponsibility for, 376; methods ofstudying, 564; offering, 568,576,812;opportunity for, 598; original, 583,629-39,915, 1091,1179; racial, 427;relationship between doctrine of, andother doctrines, 562-63; results of,601-19; and sickness, 838-39; assickness, 625,786; social dimension of,590-93,618-19,641-58; source of,58 l-600; terms for, 564-77; universalityof, 583,585,621-25; venial, 1179,llBO;victory over, the atonement as, 792-96,797,821-22.SeealsoEvil

Sinfulness, 491,578,579,626; denial of,593-94

Singleness, 556-58Sinlessness: of Jesus, 208-09,7 18-2 1,742,

755-56; in this life, possibility of, 910,971-74

Sinner, effects of sin on the, 615-l 8Sitz im Leben, 87-88,93-94,96-97,98, 102,

103Skinner, B. F., 363n, 464nSlavery, 517,542-43Slaves, status of, 124Sleeper, R. W., 43n

I297

Smart, James, 23nSmeaton, George, 869nSmith, Charles Ryder, 498n, 566n, 567n,

568,57On, 571,572n, 573n, 574n, 576n,603,604n, 608,624,625n, 626

Smith, Henry Preserved, 230,232Smith, William, 380Smith, W. Robertson, 306,740Snaith, Norman, 509Snowden, James, 1168nSo-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic

Biblical Christ (KZhler), 664-65Social action as religion (liberalism),

305-06Social being, man as a, 470Social concern as a function of the

church, 1057-59Social dimension of sin, 590-93,6 18- 19,

64 l-58; difficulty of recognizing,642-43; strategies for overcoming the,655-58

Social-gospel movement, 890,1208Social righteousness, 112Society, doctrine of sin and the problems

of, 563Socinians, 509, 1176Socinian theory, 783-85,79 1,8 19-20Socinus, Faustus, 783,784n, 785n, 8 16nSocinus, Laelius, 783Sociological definition of the church,

1030Socrates, 48Siiderblom, Nathan, 1139Son of God, 687-88Son of man, 693,726“Son of Mary,” 746,750“Sons of God,” 442-43Sophocles, 1065Soul, 520-39 passim; glorification of the,

1000; .immortality of the, 1175-76;origin of the, 481,554,635; sleep,1176-78

Souls, disembodied, 12 14- 15Source, error in original, 23 l-32Source criticism, 83,84-85,95South India, Church of, 1136Sovereignty of God, 915-l 6, Y28Space, God’s infinity in terms of, 268,

273-74,313-14

Special calling, 030-33, Y46Specialization, 62Spc>cial Luke, 85Special Matthew, 85SpcL‘cial rcvclation, 3 l-32,72-73,80,

12%

153-54, 165,169-98,305; definition andnecessity of, 175-77; styleof, 177-81;modes of, 181-91

Specificity, degree of, 215-17,236,238Spectacles of faith, 171,256Speculations, 80Speech as special revelation, divine,

187-90Spencer, Duane Edward, 9 14nSpencer, Herbert, 363Spinoza, Benedict, 420Spirit, 520-24. See also Holy SpiritSpirit (breath) of God, 302-03,372Spiritists, 244“Spirit of God,” 866Spirits, elemental, 645,649Spiritual body, 1198,123lSpiritual death, 612,613-14,1170,1174Spirituality of God, 266,267-68,273Spiritual nature of union with Christ,

952-53Spiritual unity, 1135, 1146State, heaven as a, 1231-32Stauffer, Ethelbert, 400,665,746nStaupitz, Johann von, 912Stein, Robert, 684,688n, 1125nStendahl, Krister, 24Stonehouse, Ned B., 100, 979nStories, 86Strahan, James, 945nStratification: of topics, 78-79; of forms,

86-87, 93, 95Strauss, David, 663, 1109Stringfellow, Thorton, 542nStrong, Augustus H., 30, 207n, 266n,

267n, 285n, 287n, 341, 353n, 383n,389n, 399n, 442,48ln, 524n, 579,628n,630n, 771n, 826n, 829n, 834,83.5,915n,918n, 945n, 962n, 972n, 988n, 1016n,1045n, 1080n, 1081n, 1082n, 1096n,1097n, 1113n, 1121n, 1150n, 1170n,1198n

Structural criticism, 84Structural view of the image of God. See

Substantive view of the image of GodSubjective dimension of authority,

251-53, 257Subjective idealism, 55Subjective knowledge, 895-96Subjective theories of the atonement,

789, 791Sub,jcctivism, 193, 195Subjectivity, 104, 192-93, 672; tenet of

existentialism, 46, 47; in criticism, 103

Name and Subject Index

Sublapsarianism, 360n, 826,829,835,918Subordination: of the Son, 514,698,735;

within the Trinity, functional, 338Substance, the Trinity as one identical,

333, 336-37Substantive view of the image of God,

498-502, 512, 513Substitutionary atonement, 805, 807,

809, 812-14, 816-17, 958Suffering as part of union with Christ,

954Summers, Ray, 1214Superchurch, 1145Supernaturalism, 304Supper of the Lamb, marriage, 1232Supralapsarianism, 826, 913, 918Surd evil, 415Swete, Henry B., 873nSylvester I, 82Symbol, baptism as a, 1096-97, 1101,

1104-05Symbolic view of eschatology, 1154Symbolism of the Lord’s Supper, 1123-24Sympathetic oneness, 950-51Synchronic approach to historical

theology, 25Synergism, 9 11Synod, 1076Syntactics, 143Synthesis, theological language as

metaphysical, 141-46Synthetic statements, 49, 128-32Systematic theology, 21, 22-28, 109;

impediments to, 62-63Systematized eschatology, 1162-64

Talmage, James E., 268nTatian, 332, 753nTatlow, Tissington, 1139nTaylor, A. E., 41n, 720Taylor, Vincent, 92n, 190, 958Teaching: elder, 1076, 1077; as a function

of the church, 1055-56; role of theSpirit, 874

Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre, 949nTeleological issue (evangelicals and

ecumenism), 1145Teleological proof (design), 158, 161,

162-63Temple: as a unifying factor, 1131; of the

Holy Spirit, the body as the, 857; of theHoly Spirit, the church as the, 1039-41

Temple, William, 192Temptation, 598, 720; of Jesus, 598, 720,

871

Name and Subject Index

Tennant, Frederick R., 582-85, 593, 599Tenney, Merrill C., 1154nTennyson, Alfred, Lord, 1232nTertullian, 40, 295n, 332-33, 334,335n,

342, 713n, 714,742n 747,755n, 849,851, 908n, 1180

Textual criticism, 83Thayer, H. S., 42nTheism, absolute, 416Theistic evolution, 383, 480, 481, 482-84Thelen, Mary Frances, 593nTheodicies, 413-32; classifications of, 422Theodoret, 728Theodotus, 333,334Theological form of the problem of evil,

413Theological issue (evangelicals and

ecumenism), 1143Theologies, life-spans of, 59-61Theology: aesthetic nature of, 1245-46;

dangers associated with the study of,1245; definition of, 21-23; inverted, 300;and language, 127-49; liberationtheology’s view of the nature of, 1004;need for logical thinking in the study of,1245; method of, 36, 59-80; narrative,1246; need for, 28-30; and philosophy,39-58; schools of, 61; as science, 33-36;and science, 367,378-79; starting pointof, 30-33; systems of, 61. See alsoBiblical theology; Historical theology;Systematic theology

Theonomist theodicy, 422Theophanies, 268Theotokos, 727Thesis (antithesis, synthesis), 42, 363Thielicke, Helmut, 225, 782n, 1245Thiessen, Henry C., 355n, 826n, 830n, 920Third World, 892, 1151Thiselton, Anthony, 64n, 147nThomas, John Newton, 196Thomas Aquinas, 26, 31, 34,40,4 1, 60,

157-59, 160, 161, 162, 170, 246,414,422, 434, 435-36, 499n, 912, 1092n,1116, 1179, 1180, 1199n

Thorson, James A., 552n-53nThoughts, sin as internal, 578, 625-27Three, the deity of, 324-27, 337Three-in-oneness, 327-32Three-story view of the universe, 106-07,

436Tillich, Paul, 47, 61, 62, 73, 77, 306-09,

446, 458-59, 588-90, 599, 676Time: God’s infinity in terms of, 274-75;

1299

as a factor in evaluating good and evil,426-27

Time dimension: of conversion, 934; ofeschatology, 1154; of salvation,conceptions of the, 888-89

Tindal, Matthew, 854nTodt, Heinz Eduard, 691Token of salvation, baptism as a, 1096-97,

1101,1104-05Toland, John, 41nTongues, speaking in. See GlossolaliaTool-making as mark of man, 484,485Topics, stratification of, 78-79Torbet, Robert G., 979nTotal depravity, 256, 539, 627-31, 656,

803, 822, 905, 914-15, 927, 932Total inability, 915, 925, 933, 942Toussaint, Stanley D., 878nTradition: criticism, 83, 95; and

authority, 258. See also Oral traditionsTraducianism, 554, 635Transcendence, 116, 120, 178,247, 273,

275,280, 301-02, 303, 307, 310, 312-19,478, 695, 713, 722, 741; biblical basisfor, 312-13; models of, 313-17;implications of, 317-19

Transformers, 113-16, 1030Transgression, 57 1Transitions: in the Gospels, 85; in

language usage, 134Transitive attributes, 266Translations, inerrancy and, 239-40Translators, 113, 116-20Transubstantiation, 43, 1115-16, 1117Traub, Helmut, 1226nTreachery, 573-74Trench, Richard, 250n, 860nTrent, Council of, 904, 1008, 1009, 1115,

1180Trials, preservation among, 390-91Tribulation, great, 1190-92, 1193, 1206,

1211-12; views of the, 1217-24Trichotomism, 520-2 1, 522Trinity, 42, 118, 148, 204, 265, 292,

321-42, 371-73, 846; biblical teachingon the, 322-32; historical constructionsof the, 332-37; essential elements of thedoctrine of the, 337-38; analogieselucidating the, 338-41; theresurrection of believers as the work ofthe, 1196

Tritheism, 336, 340Triumph over evil, the atonement as,

792-96, 797, 821-22

1300

Troeltsch, Ernst, 163Tropici, 850Trouble, 577Trust, faith as, 191, 193-94Truth: relationship between experience

and, 29; pragmatism’s view of, 43, 44;existentialism’s subjectivizing of, 46,47, 192-93; unitary nature of, 55; manas the measure of, 114, 116; God as themeasure of, 117; Spirit of, 250;dimensions of, 289-92; divine nature ofall, 305; objective. See Propositionalview of special revelation

Truths of revelation, 192, 195, 253Tucker, Gene M., 82nTULIP, 914Twisted relationship with God, sin as, 429Tyconius, 1206Tyrrell, George, 22n, 664

Unbaptized infants, 1091-92Unbelief as the major factor in sin, 580,

587Unbelievers, resurrection of, 1200Unborn, status of the, 553-56Unchangeableness of God’s plan, 354. See

also Constancy of GodUnconditional nature of God’s plan,

355-57Unconditional predestination, 914,

916-17, 920-21Unction, extreme, 1009“Unio-mysticism,” 950nUnion with Christ, 647, 818-19, 948-54,

958-59, 960, 974-75, 988, 1037, 1100-01Uniqueness: as criterion of authenticity,

94, 103; of God, 284, 323-24; of God’screative work, 374,384-85; of man, 489

United Church of Canada, 1136, 1144United Church of Christ, 1136United Methodist Church, 1136Unity: of biblical materials, 69-70; of

Christ and the believer, 647, 818-19,948-54, 958-59, 960, 974-75, 988, 1037,1 100-O 1; of deity and humanity inChrist, 723-38 (SW also Incarnation); ofthe church, 1038, 1040, 1129-46;conciliar, 1136; conditional, 536-39; ofGod, 323-24,337,34 1; organic, 1 136-37;spiritual, 1135, 1146; of witness,1133-34, I146

Univ~ersal atonement, 829-35, 1016, 1021Clniversai Christian Council for Life and

Work. I 139

Name and Subject Index

Universal conversion, theory of, 101 S- 16Universal election, 923-24Universal evangelism, 1054Universal explicit opportunity, theory of,

1016-17Universal grace. See Prevenient graceUniversal intent of salvation, 919Universal invitation, 919, 927, 930Universalism, 832, 835, 891, 1015-22,

1236, 1239Universality: of the image of God, 507,

511, 513, 516-17, 541-58; of sin, 583,585, 62 l-25

Universal opportunity, theory of, 1016Universal pardon, theory of, 1017Universal reconciliation, theory of, 1017Universal restoration, theory of, 1017-18Universal salvation, belief in, 832, 835.

See also UniversalismUniversal setting as criterion of

permanence, 121-22Universe: age of, 380-82; man as a pawn

of the, 467-68Univocal language, 179-80Unknown God (Barth), 3 14Unlimited atonement, 829-35Unmarried, the, 556-58Unrighteous, resurrection of the, 1200Unselfishness. See Benevolence of GodUssher, James, 81, 380Utopianisms, 363

Valla, Laurentius, 82Van Buren, Paul, 114-15, 899nVan Gemeren, Willem A., 443nVan Lawick, Hugo, 485nVatican I, 1072Vatican II, 901, 902,903, 1072, 1140Venial sins, 1179, 1180Veracious authority, 242-43Veracity of God, 290-91Verbal inspiration, 207, 213-15,219Verduin, Leonard, 478, 509-10Verifiability principle, 129, 13 1, 132-33,

141,228,239,532, 535Verification, eschatological, 140-41Verificational analysis, 128-33Verkuyl, Johannes, 657nVictory over evil, the atonement as,

792-96, 797, 821-22Villain, Maurice, 1138, 1139nVindication of the believer, 999Violence and liberation theology, 591,

592, 1006, 1007

Name and Subject Index

Virgin birth, 304, 694, 713, 739-58;significance of the, 739-43; evidence forthe, 743-48; objections to the, 748-54;theological meaning of the, 754-58

Virgin conception, 741-42Visible church, 1043-48, 1135Visser, A. J., 1209nVisser’t Hooft, W. A., 1144, 1145n, 1146Vital nature of union with Christ, 953Vitringa, Campegius, 167Vocabulary of biblical writers, 217-18Voluntary character of Jesus’ sacrifice,

817Von Campenhausen, Hans, 755nVon Rad, Gerhard, 496n, 568Vos, Geerhardus, 1041, 1150nVriezen, Theodorus, 328

Wainwright, Arthur, 33 1, 1034Wakefield, Samuel, 832n, 919n, 921n,

990n, 991nWalker, William, 98Wallis, Jim, 648nWaltke, Bruce, 555nWalvoord, John, 1162n, 1164n, 1191n,

1193n, 1218n, 1219n, 1220nWar, 619Warfield, Benjamin B., 176n, 177n, 208,

230,232,233,346,347n, 348n, 359,484878n, 908n, 915n, 916n, 917n, 918n,1212, 1213, 1237

Watson, John, 532Watson, Richard, 920nWay of life as permanent element in

Christianity, 112Wealth, biblical teaching on, 550-51Weiss, Johannes, 1157Weitz, Moritz, 48nWenger, John C., 1097nWenham, Gordon, 82nWesley, John, 60,634,853,914,920,92ln

971nWestcott, Brooke Foss, 993n, 994nWestminster Confession of Faith, 986nWestminster Seminary, 979, 1141White, Andrew Dickson, 378nWhite, Edward, 1237nWhitehead, Alfred North, 51, 280, 367,

386nWhitcley, D. E. H., 957Whort, Ben,jamin Lee, 530nWhy Consmu tiw C’hrrrclws Are Grmzjing

(Kcllev), 1067Wicked,‘prosperity 01 the, 289

1301

Wieman, Henry Nelson, 417Wiles, Maurice, 679nWiley, H. Orton, 61 In, 634, 83 In, 920n,

932n, 1016nWilkenson, Elizabeth, 547nWill: man’s, 255; God’s plan and man’s,

353, 355 (see also Freedom, human;Free will); God’s, 277-78, 361, 417,419

Williams, Colin W., 1026n, 1027, 1029Williams, Daniel Day, 280nWillingness to serve, 1067-68Wilson, Archdeacon J., 583Wilson, Donald R., 484nWilson, John Macartney, 437n, 443n,

446nWilson, Robert Dick, 979Wine, 1113, 1115, 1125-26Winer, G. B., 814Wirt, Sherwood, 1057nWisdom: literature, 188-89; of the world,

248; of God, 275-76, 277Wisdom, John, 130, 136Wissenschaft, criteria of, 35Witness, united, 1133-34, 1146Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 48, 49, 132, 133,

134n, 532, 535Women, status of, 124,223, 545-49Wood, Leon, 866n, 867n, 868nWoolley, Paul, 1140n, 1141nWord-flesh Christology, 727Word-man Christology, 727Word of God, 32,77, 164, 165, 185, 199,

244, 252-53, 334; Arian conception ofthe, 695-97; as a means of salvation,1011-12; preaching of the, as a mark ofthe church, 1047. See also Jesus;Scripture; Special revelation

Words: inspiration of individual, 2 13- 15;and thoughts, 215

Work: ethic, 516; in heaven, 123 1; ofChrist, relationship between study ofthe person and, 675-77, 699-700,702-03, 762

Works: faith and, 959-60, 1012-15; andgrace, Judaism’s emphasis on, 977;salvation by, 633, 1181

World-and-life view, 18, 142, 145;Christianity’s, 54-55

World (antithesis of the kingdom of God),643-48

World Council of Churches, 1139-40,1144,1145

World Missionary Conference, 1138, 1 146World’s Student Christian Association,

1138

1302

Worship, 1056-57; in heaven, 1230, 1234Wrath of God, 604-05, 809-l 1, 817-18,

1221Wrede, William, 111Wright, G. Ernest, 108n, 182-83, 185,

188-89Wrongness of sin, 606Wynkoop, Mildred Bangs, 921

Yoder, John H., 648n, 650-51Yom, 72,380,381,482Young, Edward J., 230Young, Frances, 680n

Name and Subject Index

Young, Paul, 464nYoungblood, Ronald, 381nYoung Men’s Christian Association, 1138Young Women’s Christian Association,

1138

Zeisler, J. A., 955n, 956n, 958n, 960Zephyrinus, 335Zoroastrianism, 109,414Zwingli, Ulrich, 913, 1008, 1113, 1117,

1119,112oZwinglian view of the Lord’s Supper,

1120-21